CAFRA – Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), codified in substantial part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, and 28 U.S.C. § 2465, was enacted as remedial legislation following decades of criticism directed at the federal government’s civil asset forfeiture practices.
Before CAFRA, the federal forfeiture system heavily favored the government. Federal agencies like the DEA, FBI, and IRS could seize property—including cash, vehicles, real estate, and entire commercial bank accounts—merely by demonstrating probable cause.
The burden of proof then shifted entirely to the property owner to prove a negative: that the property was innocent and not involved in criminal conduct. Property owners were even required to post a cost bond just to contest the seizure in court.
CAFRA overhauled the procedural landscape of federal civil in rem forfeiture actions, leveling the playing field for property owners and establishing strict statutory mechanisms to hold the government accountable.
Attorneys Defending CAFRA Seizures for Forfeiture
Federal civil asset forfeiture actions move rapidly. Failing to strictly comply with statutory notice windows, Verified Claim requirements under Supplemental Rule G(5), and CAFRA deadlines can result in an automatic default and permanent loss of property.
At Sammis Law Firm, our attorneys represent individuals, business owners, and corporate entities whose bank accounts, cryptocurrency, or assets have been frozen or seized by federal agencies.
We challenge defective pleadings, enforce statutory CAFRA protections, demand the return of seized property, and pursue mandatory attorney’s fees against the federal government whenever our clients substantially prevail.
Call 813-250-0500.
Strict Timelines for Notice and Complaint Filing
CAFRA eliminated the government’s ability to hold seized assets indefinitely without filing formal charges:
- 60-Day Notice Rule (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)): In nonjudicial seizures, the government must send written notice to all interested parties within 60 days of the seizure.
- 90-Day Lawsuit Deadline (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)): Once a property owner files a formal administrative claim, the government has exactly 90 days to either return the property or file a civil forfeiture complaint in federal district court (or obtain a criminal indictment containing a forfeiture allegation). If the government misses this deadline, it must promptly release the property and is barred from pursuing civil forfeiture for the same offense.
The Government’s Burden of Proof Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)
CAFRA eliminated the low “probable cause” standard for civil forfeiture trials and placed the burden of proof squarely on the government. Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1), the United States must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property is subject to forfeiture.
Furthermore, under § 983(c)(3), if the government’s theory is that the property was used to commit, facilitate, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the government must affirmatively establish a substantial connection between the specific property seized and the underlying offense.
The civil forfeiture process starts with the government filing a complaint in district court. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). Under Supplemental Rule G(2), the government’s complaint must identify the property to be forfeited and provide “detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.”
The government must also provide notice of the action to the public and known potential claimants. Supp. R. G(4); see 18 U.S.C. § 983(a).
Claimants may then intervene to assert a claim to the property. Supp. R. G(5)(a); 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A). These claims must “identify the specific property claimed” and “identify the claimant and state the claimant’s interest in the property.” Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i)(A), (B).
Although the burden is on the government to establish forfeitability, a civil forfeiture claimant must have Article III standing to seek the property.
Claimants “carry the burden of establishing standing by a preponderance of the evidence.” Supp. R. G(8)(c)(ii)(B); see $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 637-38.
In the civil forfeiture context, claimants can establish standing by showing that they have an interest in the property, which includes an ownership interest or a possessory interest.
The Heightened Pleading Standard: Supplemental Rule G(2)(f)
In judicial forfeiture proceedings, CAFRA works in tandem with Supplemental Rule G of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A civil forfeiture complaint cannot rest on bare legal conclusions or vague suspicions. Under Supplemental Rule G(2)(f), the government must plead sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that it will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.
If the government files an overreaching complaint the claimant can file a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss under Supplemental Rule G(8)(b) to challenge the complaint and seek the return of the funds.
Read more about how the claimant can file a motion to dismiss the government’s complaint for forfeiture when it fails to state a claim.
The Uniform “Innocent Owner” Defense (18 U.S.C. § 983(d))
Prior to CAFRA, innocent owners lacked consistent protection across different federal forfeiture statutes. Section 983(d) established a comprehensive, uniform statutory defense that prohibited an innocent owner’s interest in property from bing forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute.
To prevail under the innocent owner defense, what the claimant must provide by a preponderance of the evidence dependings on when the Claimant’s interest in the property arise.
For pre-existing property interests, it must be shown that the owner did not know of the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture, or, upon learning of the conduct, did all that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances to terminate the illegal use of the property.
For interests acquired after the conduct, it must be shown that the claimant was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value and was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture at the time the interest was acquired.
CAFRA’s Mandatory Fee-Shifting Provision (28 U.S.C. § 2465(b))
One of CAFRA’s most significant reforms was the creation of a mandatory fee-shifting provision designed to penalize government overreach and ensure property owners are not financially ruined by defending against unlawful seizures.
Unlike its discretionary predecessor, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), CAFRA’s fee-shifting statute is mandatory:
“in any civil proceeding to forfeit property under any provision of Federal law in which the claimant substantially prevails, the United States shall be liable for reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by the claimant.”
28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1)(A)
A claimant does not need to take the case through a complete trial to “substantially prevail.” When the government agrees to return seized property through a settlement, dismisses its verified complaint after a defense motion, or is ordered by the court to release the funds, the claimant qualifies as a prevailing party entitled to statutory fees and costs.
Recoverable Damages Under § 2465(b)
When a claimant substantially prevails, the United States is held liable for:
- Reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs calculate under the traditional “lodestar” standard (reasonable hourly rates multiplied by hours reasonably expended), which is not capped by the lower hourly rate limits of the EAJA;
- Post-judgment interest assessed on the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1961;
- Pre-judgment interest on seized currency or negotiable instruments, includes:
- any interest actually earned if the seized money was invested in an interest-bearing account; and
- imputed interest calculated at the 30-day Treasury Bill rate for any period during which the government held the currency without paying interest.
CAFRA’s Re-Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
The Government might also be liable for damage to their property caused by the seizure or forfeiture proceeding under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”) which added paragraphs (1)-(4) to 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c).
To success, the Plaintiff must first, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), plead that it timely filed an administrative claim with the agency prior to initiating this suit. Under this requirement, the Plaintiff must carry its burden “to both plead and prove compliance with the [FTCA’s] statutory requirements.” In re “Agent Orange” Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 210, 214 (2d Cir. 1987) (collecting cases).
Second, the Plaintiff must qualify under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), as amended by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), for the requisite waiver of sovereign immunity.
The FTCA waives sovereign immunity with respect to “claims against the United States, for money damages . . . for. loss of property . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
“This waiver, however, is made subject to the detention exception, § 2680(c) of the FTCA, which bars claims ‘arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.'” Diaz v. United States, 517 F.3d 608, 613 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c)).
CAFRA amended Section 2680(c) to create “an exception to the exception, that is, to permit claims against the United States for injury or loss of goods or property in law enforcement custody if the claimant can satisfy” the following four conditions:
- the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture under any provision of Federal law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense;
- the interest of the claimant was not forfeited;
- the interest of the claimant was not remitted or mitigated (if the property was subject to forfeiture); and
- the claimant was not convicted of a crime for which the interest of the claimant in the property was subject to forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law.
Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c)(1)-(c)(4)).
Failure to fulfill any one of those four criteria means that Plaintiff “cannot benefit from § 2680(c)’s re-waiver of sovereign immunity, and there is no federal jurisdiction under the FTCA to hear [Plaintiff’s] claim.” Id.
As explained in Foster v. United States, 522 F.3d 1071, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2008), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c)(1)-(4) provide for a re-waiver of sovereign immunity when property is damaged while in the possession of the government, including law enforcement officers, when the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture, the claimant’s interest was not forfeited, remitted or mitigated, and the claimant was not convicted of a crime for which the property was subject to forfeiture. Id.
In Foster, the Ninth Circuit concluded that under the CAFRA, section 2680(c)(1)-(4)’s re-waiver of sovereign immunity specifically applies only to property seized for the sole purpose of forfeiture. Id. at 1075, 1079. In fact, the court found that even if the government had the possibility of a forfeiture in mind when seizing property, section 2680(c)(1)-(4)’s re-waiver of sovereign immunity does not detract from the application of the detention of goods exception when the initial seizure occurred pursuant to a legitimate criminal investigation.
In other words, in Foster, the court rejected the argument that CAFRA’s waiver of sovereign immunity applied where “there is no suggestion that the criminal investigative purpose of the seizure was not genuine.”
Additional Resources
Asset Forfeiture Law – Federal Law and CAFRA – Visit the University Libraries maintained by the University of Oklahoma (OU) to read more about the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, find key federal civil forfeiture statutes, and learn about the federal equitable sharing program.
This article was last updated on Friday, October 2, 2026.