With the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), Congress sought to steer federal prosecutors to criminal forfeiture by making criminal forfeiture more inclusive and civil forfeiture less attractive.1 Congress believed that the risk of abuse would be reduced because a criminal conviction is required before a defendant’s property can be forfeited in a criminal proceeding.2
Unfortunately, it turned out that greater reliance on criminal forfeiture increased abuses in that area as well. Examples include plea agreements where the criminal defendant purportedly consents to forfeit property that does not belong to him, jeopardizing the rights of innocent third parties,3 and so-called “money judgment forfeitures,” a judge-made loophole that allows the government to forfeit property without satisfying the statutory requirement that the government trace the property sought to be forfeited to the defendant’s criminal activity.4
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
