Deadlines for CAFRA Civil Asset Forfeitures

The attorneys at the Sammis Law Firm know that one of the easiest ways to win a federal civil asset forfeiture case is to file a motion to dismiss when the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) misses a deadline. Most people would be shocked at how often the AUSA misses those deadlines and how often they have to return the property because of that problem.

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (hereinafter “CAFRA”) imposes several statutory deadlines in forfeiture cases, including:

• a 60-day deadline to issue a notice of seizure to all interested parties; and
• a 90-day deadline to file a complaint for forfeiture after the demand for court action is filed;
• the statute of limitations that might bar the government from initiating a forfeiture; and
• the statute of limitations that might bar the claimant from moving to set aside a default judgment.

This article examines how the 60- and 90-day deadlines may lead to the court dismissing the government’s forfeiture complaint if missed. This article also explores when the “seizure” occurs across physical, account-based, and digital property.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Lawyers at Sammis Law Firm

If a government agency seized your property, contact an experienced civil asset forfeiture attorney at Sammis Law Firm. We represent clients throughout the state of Florida in civil asset forfeiture cases. We also co-counsel with other attorneys across the United States to fight for the return of property.

At Sammis Law Firm, we pay particular attention to the deadlines in civil asset forfeiture cases. When appropriate, we file and litigate motions to dismiss the government’s complaint on this basis.

We focus on helping people get their property back, with a particular focus on the seizure for forfeiture of high value cryptocurrency and digital assets.

Call 813-250-0500.

Government’s 60-Day Deadline – Section 983(a)(1)

The 60-day deadline to issue the notice of seizure is explained in Title 9 of the Department of Justice Manual in 9-112.210 as follows:

Section 983(a)(1) requires that written notice of an administrative forfeiture action be sent to interested parties as soon as practicable but no later than 60 days after the date of the seizure.

For interested parties determined after seizure, the written notice shall occur within 60 days after reasonably determining ownership or interest. See section 983(a)(1)(A)(v)….

If a seizing agency discovers that it has inadvertently failed to comply with a deadline for sending notice of the administrative forfeiture of property in a case where such deadlines apply, and the person from whom the property was seized has not waived the 60-day deadline, no further action may be taken to forfeit the property administratively based on the offense giving rise to the original seizure, and the property must be returned to the person from whom it was seized in accordance with section 983(a)(1)(F), unless the return of the property would be unlawful, or unless the Government, as soon as may be practicable, commences a judicial forfeiture proceeding by[:]

(1) naming the property in a criminal indictment or information and obtaining a judicial order pursuant to section 853(e) or (f) allowing it to hold the property; or

(2) filing a civil judicial forfeiture action and retaining lawful possession of the property pursuant to an arrest warrant in rem.

See Chapter 2 of the Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual (“Sixty-Day Notice Period in All Administrative Forfeiture Cases”).

One exception to this rule involves high-value property valued at $500,000 or more, for which no “notice of seizure” is required, as administrative forfeiture is not permitted. For high-value assets valued at $500,000 or more, the property can only be forfeited through judicial forfeiture proceedings.

Nevertheless, the owner can file a verified claim demanding the court action even though the seizing agency never issues a “notice of seizure.” That verified claim can be filed with the seizing agency and should also be served on the United States Attorney General, and on the United States Attorney in the U.S. District Court where a complaint for forfeiture might be filed.

Government’s 90-Day Deadline – Section 983(a)(3)

The 90-day deadline takes effect after a demand for court action is filed with the agency that seized the property. Under CAFRA, a complaint for forfeiture must be filed within 90 days after a verified claim for court action has been filed.

If a complaint for forfeiture is not filed within the 90-day time period that begins after the verified claim is filed, the seized property must be returned to the owner. In those cases, the Claimant can file a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property, or a motion to dismiss the complaint for forfeiture that was filed late. No further action regarding the civil forfeiture of the property in connection with the underlying offense can be initiated.

Instead of filing a civil forfeiture complaint within 90 days, the government has the option of including a forfeiture count or allegation in a criminal indictment.

Even after the seizure for forfeiture of high-value property worth $500,000 or more, the 90-day deadline can be triggered by the Claimant sending a verified claim for court action to the seizing agency or filing a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A), (E) & (3)(A).

For this reason, the Claimant is permitted to file a claim, even before the notice of seizure if issued, or even if no notice is ever issued. As discussed above, the attorneys at Sammis Law Firm know it is better to serve the claim too early rather than too late.

We also know that we can serve the claim each time more information becomes available. For example, we might serve the first claim immediately after we determine which agency “froze” the property.

Another claim might be filed after the Government takes possession of the property, assigns an Asset ID Number, or issues a “notice of seizure.” We might reserve that claim after the Government discloses which judicial district the complaint might be filed in.

How Do you Determine the “Date of the Seizure”?

What event gives the Government legal dominion or control over the property such that the statutory clock begins to run?

That becomes especially important under CAFRA because § 983 repeatedly uses “date of the seizure” as the trigger. The statute requires notice generally within 60 days after that date, and after a claim is filed, the Government generally has 90 days to file a forfeiture complaint or return the property.

To make that determination, the courts look at issues related to where the property resides and who has the ability to exercise control over it. The question of when a seizure occurs then depends on what kind of property is involved and what the Government actually did to obtain control over it.

With tangible property, the analysis is relatively straightforward. A gold bar, a stack of cash, a car, or a computer has a physical location. The owner possesses the thing, and the Government seizes it by taking physical possession or otherwise obtaining physical control over it. If an officer takes a gold bar from someone’s safe, the seizure occurs when the Government takes the bar. There is no need to wait until the Government transports the gold to a DEA evidence room, photographs it, deposits it in a vault, or eventually files a forfeiture action. Those later events concern what the Government does with property it has already seized.

The analysis becomes more complicated with property that is intangible but represented or administered through an institution’s records. The most obvious example is a bank account that involves physical dollars somewhere in the banking system, but the customer’s property interest is not the particular bills sitting in a particular vault. What the customer actually owns is the legal and economic right represented by the account: the right to withdraw, transfer, spend, or otherwise use the funds according to the terms of the account.

Bank Account

Consequently, when the Government seizes a bank account, it ordinarily does not need to physically take possession of the underlying dollars. The important event may instead be the Government’s restraint of the account through the bank. If the Government serves the bank with an order that prevents the customer from withdrawing or transferring the funds, the Government has potentially deprived the owner of the ability to exercise the essential incidents of ownership even though the physical dollars have never moved. The subsequent transfer of those funds to a Government account would therefore appear to be a later custodial event rather than necessarily the original seizure.

Brokerage Account

That same concept applies to property held through a financial intermediary. A brokerage account, for example, consists of securities and cash reflected through the brokerage firm’s records. If the Government prevents the owner from selling the securities, withdrawing the cash, or transferring the account, the Government may have effectively obtained control over the property through the intermediary. The fact that the securities remain in the same account, at the same institution, does not necessarily mean that no seizure has occurred.

Cryptocurrency in an Exchange Wallet

Cryptocurrency held on an exchange presents a similar situation, although the technology is different. If Bitcoin or USDT is held through an exchange such as Coinbase or Binance, the customer does not personally control the private keys. The exchange maintains the relevant records and controls the ability to transfer the cryptocurrency. If the Government directs the exchange to freeze the account, preventing the customer from transferring or withdrawing the cryptocurrency, the Government has exercised control through the intermediary. Again, the critical event may be the freeze or restraint rather than the later transfer of the cryptocurrency to a Government-controlled wallet.

Cryptocurrency in a Self-custodied Wallet

Self-custodied cryptocurrency presents a fundamentally different problem. If someone holds Bitcoin or Ether in a wallet for which that person alone controls the private keys, there is no bank, exchange, or other intermediary holding the asset for the owner. The blockchain records the transactions, but the private key determines who can cause the cryptocurrency to move. In that situation, merely identifying the wallet on the blockchain does not give the Government control over the cryptocurrency. Likewise, an investigation that traces the cryptocurrency to a particular wallet does not necessarily constitute a seizure.

How Did the Government Deprived the Owner of the Ability to Exercise Control over the Cryptocurrency?  The question therefore becomes: what did the Government do that actually deprived the owner of the ability to exercise control over the cryptocurrency? If the Government obtains the private keys and can move the cryptocurrency, that is one obvious point at which Government control has been established.

If the Government causes the cryptocurrency to be transferred from the owner’s wallet to a Government-controlled wallet, that is another obvious seizure event. But if the Government has done neither of those things, the analysis becomes more difficult.

Stable Coins Like USDT Held in a Self-custodied Wallet But Controlled by Tether

That brings us to the fifth category, which is particularly important with USDT. USDT can be held in a self-custodied wallet, meaning that the wallet holder controls the private keys. But USDT also has an issuer, Tether, that possesses technical capabilities affecting the tokens themselves. Tether can blacklist an address and, depending on the circumstances, can destroy tokens associated with a blacklisted address and issue replacement tokens elsewhere.

That creates an unusual situation in which control over the wallet and control over the asset are not necessarily the same thing. The owner may continue to possess the private keys and therefore continue to control the wallet. Yet the owner may no longer be able to transfer or use the USDT because the issuer has placed the address on a blacklist. The Government may therefore have accomplished something functionally similar to a freeze without ever obtaining the private keys.

When USDT is “seized” for forfeiture, the issue because, when did the Government seize the USDT? Was it when the Government caused Tether to blacklist the wallet thereby preventing the USDT from being transferred? Or was it not until the original USDT was destroyed and an equivalent amount was newly issued to a Government-controlled wallet? Months may pass between those two dates which can impast the statutory deadline measured from “the date of the seizure.”

The AUSA will argue that the date the USDT is detroyed and reissued to a Government-controlled wallet looks much more like a traditional transfer of Government control. The original tokens were destroyed, and replacement tokens were issued to a wallet controlled by the Government. But if the Government had already effectively deprived the owner of the ability to use or transfer his USDT month early when the USDT was frozen, the date the USDT is detroyed and reissued may be better characterized as a later disposition, conversion, or transfer of property that had already been seized, rather than the initial seizure itself.

The taxonomy should focus on the location of the property and the mechanism by which Government control is obtained. With a gold bar, the Government obtains control by taking the thing. With a bank account, it may obtain control by restraining the owner’s legal right to use the account.

With exchange-held cryptocurrency, it may obtain control through the custodian. With self-custodied Bitcoin, it may need to obtain the private keys or otherwise acquire control over the asset. And with self-custodied USDT, there is an additional possibility: the Government may obtain effective control over the asset by exercising the issuer’s ability to disable, freeze, destroy, or reissue the tokens even though the owner continues to possess the private keys.

Read more about how the U.S. Government “seizes” USDT for forfeiture.

For these reasons, the fundamental question is when the Government acquired sufficient control over the property, or deprived the owner of sufficient control over it, that the Government had actually taken the property for purposes of the statutory seizure deadline.

The court should consider these questions:

1. Who controled the property immediately before the Government acts?
2. What exactly did the Government do?
3. What could the owner still do after that event?
4. Who possessed the legal/technical ability to reverse the restraint?
5. When did the Government acquire sufficient dominion over the property to make the owner unable to exercise the ordinary incidents of ownership?

The seizure date should be identified by the Government’s acquisition of legally meaningful control over the property—not necessarily by the date on which the Government physically possesses, transfers, liquidates, or destroys the property.

If the Government can start the CAFRA clock whenever it physically takes something, but can postpone that clock until a later transfer when it merely freezes something, what prevents the Government from manipulating the “date of seizure” by choosing when to convert a restraint into a transfer?

The Government Pays Attorney Fees When it Misses the Deadline

Section 2465(b)(1)(A) provides that unless a claimant is convicted of a crime for which his interest in the property was subject to forfeiture under a forfeiture criminal law, the United States is liable for reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by the claimant in any civil proceeding to forfeit property in which the claimant “substantially prevails.”

Courts have indicated such an award is proper when a claimant prevails in a motion to dismiss a forfeiture complaint because it is time-barred. $80,891.25 in U.S. Currency, 2011 WL 6400420, at *2; Funds From Fifth Third Bank Account, 2013 WL 5914101, at *12.

Return of property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(3)(B)

The regulation that applies in this situation is 28 C.F.R. §8.13, “Return of property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(3)(B),” which states:

(a) If, under 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(3), the United States is required to return seized property, the U.S. Attorney in charge of the matter shall immediately notify the appropriate seizing agency that the 90-day deadline was not met. Under this subsection, the United States is not required to return property for which it has an independent basis for continued custody, including but not limited to contraband or evidence of a violation of law.

(b) Upon becoming aware that the seized property must be released, the agency shall promptly notify the person with a right to immediate possession of the property, informing that person to contact the property custodian within a specified period for release of the property, and further informing that person that failure to contact the property custodian within the specified period for release of the property may result in initiation of abandonment proceedings against the property pursuant to 41 CFR part 128-48. The seizing agency shall notify the property custodian of the identity of the person to whom the property should be released.

(c) The property custodian shall have the right to require presentation of proper identification and to verify the identity of the person who seeks the release of property.

Sample “Motion to Dismiss” – 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A)

If the AUSA files a complaint for civil asset forfeiture under CAFRA outside the 90-day deadline from when the claim was served on the seizing agency, then your attorney can file a motion to dismiss, which might allege:

Motion to Dismiss

Comes now, ________ (hereinafter “Claimant” or “Mr. ____), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for an order directing the United States (“the Government”), the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and any affiliated federal seizing agency to return [the “Subject Property”]. The Subject Property was seized when [describe how it was initially frozen and eventually seized].

If the Government obtained a seizure warrant for the Subject Property, it has yet provided a copy to Claimant or his undersigned counsel, perhaps because it remains sealed. Nevertheless, Mr. _____ reserves the right to supplement this motion upon disclosure of the warrant and supporting affidavit. Specifically, Mr. ______ reserves the right to seek to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to any search warrant if the affidavit in support used to obtain the warrant was false and misleading.

I. INTRODUCTION

Claimant, _____, moves to dismiss this civil asset forfeiture complaint [or the forfeiture provision in the indictment] because the complaint [or indictment] was filed beyond the expiration of the 90 day statutory deadline in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(B), which ran on ______ which was 90 days after the government or seizing agency received Claimant’s verified claim on _____.

Since the civil asset forfeiture complaint [or Indictment] was filed outside the statutory deadline, the defendant property must be returned without forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §983(a)(3)(A) & (B).

Because the statutory deadline expired, the civil asset forfeiture complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). [Because the statutory deadline expired, the forfeiture provision of the Indictment must be dismissed.]

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

In support of this motion, [Claimant] makes the following showing:

1. After the defendant property was seized by [insert federal agency] on ______.
2. The [federal agency mailed notice of the seizure to the Claimant on or about ______.
3. The notice letter stated that to contest the forfeiture in U.S. District Court, the Claimant was required to file a claim of ownership “with the Forfeiture Counsel of the [federal agency] by _______” at the following address: Forfeiture Counsel, Asset Forfeiture Section, Office of Domestic Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration, HQs Forfeiture Response, P.O. Box 1475, Quantico, VA 22134-1475. See Exhibit A, Notice Letter, filed concurrently hereto and attached to Declaration of Attorney ______.
4. The notice further provided in relevant part that “[[quote what it says about date it is deemed filed]]….

III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) expressly commands:

“Not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall [1] file a complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or [2] return the property pending the filing of a complaint, except that a court in the district in which the complaint will be filed may [3] extend the period for filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.”

18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A).

Under the statute, the Government has 90 days to initiate one of three possible options:

1. file a complaint (civil or criminal) alleging the property is subject to forfeiture;
2. return the property; or
3. seek an extension of the deadline.

Id. Furthermore, if, by the end of the 90-day deadline, the Government has not initiated one of these options, its choice is limited to the prompt return of the property. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(B) (“if the Government does not [perform one of the actions listed above], the Government shall promptly release the property.”) (emphasis added).

If the court granted the AUSA’s request for an extension, the request and order must have been within the 90-day statutory deadline. The courts have “consistently held that an extension must be requested before the complaint deadline has elapsed and that retroactive extensions are not permitted.” United States v. 2014 Mercedes-Benz GL350BLT, VIN: 4JGDF2EE1EA411100, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1210 (M.D. Ala. 2016).

Read more about the rules for the claimant filing a motion seeking leave to file a late judicial claim in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding.

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