How the Government Can Take Your Money Without a Conviction – Protecting your Property and Rights

Civil forfeiture is a practice that allows the government to seize property—cash, cars, homes, and more—from individuals without requiring a criminal conviction. While intended to disrupt criminal activities like drug trafficking, the reality often paints a grim picture of abuse and injustice. Many innocent people lose their hard-earned money and property, and most lack the resources to fight back, making civil forfeiture resemble legalized robbery.

—

Unlike criminal cases, where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, civil forfeiture flips the script. Here, your property is considered guilty until you prove its innocence. Police and federal agencies only need a “preponderance of the evidence” to confiscate your property—a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold used in criminal trials.

For example, if someone is found carrying a large amount of cash, law enforcement might assume it’s connected to illegal activity, even without evidence of wrongdoing. Cases like these reveal the glaring vulnerabilities in civil forfeiture laws.

—

The scale of civil forfeiture is staggering. A 2014 report by The Washington Post revealed that, between 2001 and 2014, police seized over $2.5 billion from 61,998 cash seizures in cases where no charges were filed. Fast forward to today, and those numbers have grown significantly. According to recent data, law enforcement agencies have seized over $68.8 billion in assets since 2000 under civil forfeiture laws.

These funds are often kept by the agencies that seize them, creating a perverse financial incentive for law enforcement to confiscate property—even from innocent individuals.

—

Proponents of civil forfeiture argue that it helps disrupt criminal operations and, in some cases, returns money to victims. But such successes are far outweighed by the abuses of the system. Consider these troubling realities:

– No Accountability: In a 2012 citizen report, a police officer admitted there are virtually no limitations on civil forfeiture.

– Financial Incentives: Many agencies directly benefit from seized funds, which are often used to buy equipment, fund operations, or even pay salaries. This creates a system where seizures become a financial strategy rather than a tool for justice.

Take, for instance, the case of an individual carrying cash to buy a car. Despite having documentation proving the money’s legitimate purpose, police seized it, assuming the amount was “unusual” and connected to criminal activity. Stories like this underscore how the system disproportionately harms regular people.

 In other instances, individuals carrying untraceable cash in amount below the statutory criteria ($10,000 in most states) are nevertheless “seized” by law enforcement particularly when wrapped in “suspicious” manners. If these amounts are, say, $3,000 to $5,000, the amount it takes to contest the matter and “prove” your money is innocent, is outweighed by the amount that it will take to hire a lawyer and fight for your property.

In the worst and perhaps the most nefarious of instances, when it comes to law enforcement abuses, a person suspected of carrying large amounts of cash or possessing it in his/her home, can be stopped/approached by the police and illegally searched in blatant violation of the person’s constitutional rights. If the illegal search yields the discovery of cash, that person is precluded from seeking recourse due to the illegal search. So long as the police do not seek criminal charges, the person cannot seek legal redress such as suppression or other “due process” remedies under the law. Thus, if police want to take your money, whether legal or not, they need not comply with constitutional standards of search and seizure.

Lastly, the seizure/forfeiture laws include an inherent, or built-in, corruption system. For example, a prosecuting attorney, who stands to keep a percentage of the amount seized can threaten to charge the individual with a crime such as money laundering, for example, a felony offense, if the person seeks to legally recover his/her money. On the other hand, if the person “lets it go” and does not seek recovery by legal process, the prosecuting attorney “agrees” not to prosecute the individual. This incentivizes the individual to let the government keep the money with little or no opposition. This creates a built-in system of extortion.

—

For ordinary citizens, the burden of fighting back against forfeiture is often insurmountable:

– Expensive Legal Battles: Most people cannot afford the legal fees needed to challenge a seizure. Unlike criminal cases, there’s no guarantee of legal representation in forfeiture cases.

– Complex Legal Process: Proving that seized property is “innocent” requires extensive documentation and time, often leaving victims with no practical recourse.

This has led critics to call civil forfeiture a system of legalized theft. It disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals who rely on cash transactions.

 —

While civil forfeiture can occasionally serve its intended purpose—such as removing drug proceeds from circulation—these successes do not outweigh the widespread abuse and harm caused by the system. The current statutory framework lacks sufficient checks and balances, leaving too much room for misuse.

Key reforms that could improve the system include:

1. Raising the Standard of Proof: Requiring a criminal conviction or raising the standard to “clear and convincing evidence” before property can be forfeited.

2. Constitutional Standards: Legislative application of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, requiring law enforcement to comply with constitutional search and seizure standards when seizing monies.

3. Eliminating Financial Incentives and Requiring Accountability: Ensuring seized funds go to neutral public funds, such as education or community services, rather than law enforcement agencies. And, any amounts going to law enforcement should be accounted for in detail to a State regulatory agency.

4. Guaranteeing Legal Representation: Providing legal aid to individuals challenging forfeitures, leveling the playing field for those who cannot afford representation.

—

Conclusion Civil forfeiture was designed to combat crime, but its misuse has turned it into a tool of exploitation. The bad far outweighs the good when innocent people lose their livelihoods due to weak protections and financial incentives that drive seizures. Reforming civil forfeiture laws is essential to protect citizens’ rights, restore trust in law enforcement, and ensure that justice—not profit—remains the priority. If you’ve experienced a civil forfeiture, it’s critical to consult with a qualified lawyer to navigate this complex and often unfair system.