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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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)

What It Means to “Substantially Prevail”

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: Calculated 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: Interest assessed on the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
• Pre-Judgment Interest on Seized Currency: In cases involving seized currency or negotiable instruments, the government must pay:
• 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.

This article was last updated on Friday, September 18, 2026.