How the “Notice of Forfeiture” is Published

After your property is seized, you should act quickly to determine which law enforcement agency seized it and the deadline for filing a verified claim. If you miss the deadline, it might become very difficult to ever get the property back.

Visit the Forfeiture.gov website to find the public notices of forfeiture or search for a specific public notice. In the past, the notices of forfeiture actions were published in the newspaper, now those notices are published on a government internet site. Today, the rules allow for the online publication of forfeiture notices as provided in:

• Rule 32.2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; or
• 28 CFR Part 8.9, Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

The Asset Forfeiture Management Staff (AFMS) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) manages the government’s website that contains a list of pending forfeiture notices. The government’s website also explains how to file a claim for immediate court action to get the property back as quickly as possible.

Contact an attorney at Sammis Law Firm to learn how hiring an attorney can help ensure you don’t miss a deadline and your claim is filed properly. We are especially experienced in finding notice of a seizure for cryptocurrency or digital assets seized from a cold wallet or exchange account.

Attorneys on Notice Requirements in Forfeiture Cases

If you received a Notice of Seizure letter in the mail (the personal notice), talk to an attorney about the pros and cons of filing a claim instead of a petition for remission or mitigation. Filing the claim is the only way to contest the legality of the seizure and to assert defenses that might prevent forfeiture.

Individuals filing a petition for remission or mitigation typically receive a form letter 10 months later denying any relief and explaining why any method of contesting the seizure or forfeiture was waived (because a verified claim was never filed in time).

Filing the claim forces the seizing agency to refer the case to an Assistant United States Attorney in the forfeiture unit at the U.S. Attorneys Office.

The filing of the claim starts a 90-day deadline to either give the property back or file a forfeiture action in federal court within 90 days. If the United States Attorney’s Office doesn’t file the claim in time, then your attorney can file a complaint to get the seized property back with interest, costs, and attorney fees.

Contact us to find out more about what the notice of seizure for forfeiture means and how to beat civil asset forfeiture.

Call 813-250-0500.

Requirements for Notice in Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Cases

Due process fundamentally requires that any forfeiture proceeding requires “notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950).

Supplemental Rule G goes further, requiring the Government or seizing agency to send notice to “any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the [G]overnment before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B),” Supp. R. G(4)(b)(i), and notice by publication, which is required unless certain conditions are met, can be effectuated by “posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days,” Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv)(C). “The notice must be sent by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.” Supp. R. G(4)(b)(iii)(A).

“[T]he burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). “[I]f the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3).

Finding the Notice of Seizure Posted on Forfeiture.gov

The first way to provide public notice is by publication on an official government forfeiture site for at least thirty consecutive days. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv)(C). This version of notice is often called the “published notice.”

The published notice must “describe the property with reasonable particularity,” state the deadline to file a claim and to answer, and name the government attorney to be served with the claim and answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(ii).

To satisfy these requirements, after filing the Amended Complaint, the United States must post notice of this action on www.forfeiture.gov for thirty consecutive days. To comply with the notice requirements, the notice must:

• properly describe the property;
• explain that any claimant had sixty days from the date of publication to file a verified claim and answer with the Court;
• directed claimants to serve any claim and answer on a designated Assistant United States Attorney.

When those requirements are met, the Court may find that the United States properly published notice of the forfeiture.

Receiving Direct Service of the Personal Notice of Seizure

As for direct service of a personal notice, the United States “must send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant . . . by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(b)(i), (iii)(A).

The direct service rule requires only that the government attempt to provide actual notice, although it does not necessarily require that the government demonstrate that it was successful in providing actual notice. See United States v. $1,071,251.44 of Funds Associated with Mingzheng Int’l Trading Ltd., 324 F. Supp. 3d 38, 47 (D.D.C. 2018).

In many cases, the government will send the personal notice to the wrong address even when they know the correct address. For example, in United States v. Terry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129401, *5-9, 2026 LX 254748, 2026 WL 1683229 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 10, 2026), the court denied relief after the owner of the property argued it was “not reasonable for the DEA to serve the notice of forfeiture on his home address when he was actually in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.” Id. at 6.

Although the government conceded the owner was in the custody of the BOP at the time it served the notice of forfeiture at his home address, but it focused on the fact that the owner failed to satisfy § 983(e)(1)(B) because he had knowledge of the seizure, failed to file a timely claim despite that knowledge, and that this failure dooms his claim. Id. (citing In re Sowell, No. 08-51163, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22356, 2009 WL 799570, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2009) (“Even if the Government failed to take reasonable steps to provide notice, Claimant must also show that he did not have actual notice of the seizure in order to have the forfeiture set aside.”); Mosby v. United States, No. 7:17-CV-00253-BO, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203921, 2020 WL 6438396, at *7 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 2020) (“[E]ven if the written notice of forfeiture was insufficient under Dusenbery [v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 167, 122 S. Ct. 694, 151 L. Ed. 2d 597 (2002)], because plaintiff was present when the currency was seized, plaintiff nevertheless fails to establish that he did not know or have reason to know of the seizure within sufficient time to file a claim, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1)(B)”).

In that case, the government showed that the owner was present when the property was seized by the DEA. Under those circumstances, the court found that under the plain language of § 983(e)(1)(B), the owner’s claim is barred because he had knowledge of the seizure within sufficient time to file a timely claim.

“Even without knowledge that the seized property would be forfeited, where [the owner] “knew that the DEA took the [property]” such knowledge “enabled him to make a claim before the agency.” Id. at 7 (citations omitted).

Notice of Seizure of Cryptocurrency or Digital Assets

The rules are particularly lax for civil asset forfeiture cases involving cryptocurrency because the courts might allow service via email. The courts have found that service via email might constitute a valid form of service, particularly where the potential claimants are “international . . . whose locations are hard to pin down.” United States v. Twenty-Four Cryptocurrency Accounts, 473 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2020).

In forfeiture cases involving cryptocurrency, the United States might trace the path of the stolen funds and identify potential claimants. The United States can then obtain email addresses from the exchanges that hosted the cryptocurrency.

The United States might then email notice to those email addresses. In many cases, the emails might be returned as undeliverable. Even in those cases, the United States might argue it only needs to show an attempt to provide actual notice, not that it succeeded.

Perhaps for that reason, the seizing agency might allow a claim to be filed via email. For example, the attorneys at Sammis Law Firm have seen personal notices send via email for the seizure of USDT from the United States Secret Service (USSS), which allow service of a claim for court action to SCC.Seizure@dea.gov. The published notice on forfeiture.gov for the same property does NOT provide for an option to serve the claim via email.

Finding the Notice of Seizure of Cryptocurrency

When the Government brings an action for forfeiture in rem of cryptocurrency, the Court must be particularly careful to determine whether the Government complied with the requirements of the Supplemental Rules. First, the Clerk must issue a warrant to arrest the Defendant Cryptocurrency in compliance with Supplemental Rule G(3)(b)(i).

Second, the record must establish that the Government’s posted notice sufficient to satisfy Supplemental Rule G(4). In United States v. 674,739.480211 USDT of Tether Cryptocurrency, No. 5:25-cv-01040 (BKS/PJE), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42940, at *18 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2026), the Court found the notice was insufficient explaining:

While the Government published public notice of the action on an official government forfeiture website, www.forfeiture.gov, from August 7, 2025 to September 5, 2025, (Dkt. No. 5, at 3; Dkt. No. 9-2, ¶ 5), it is not clear that the public notice “describe[s] the [Defendant Cryptocurrency] with reasonable particularity” in satisfaction of Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(A).

The public notice identifies Defendant Cryptocurrency as “674,739.480211 USDT from Tether account number #XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX5usu, held in the name of Best Acct# XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25-FBI-003794) seized from Tether on May 22, 2025 in Albany, NY.” (Dkt. No. 5, at 2). But the verified complaint indicates Tether cryptocurrency was traced from the Victim’s accounts to a “Target Wallet” identified as “Wallet TNj4y6nnTX,” and funds were seized from the Target Wallet. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 19, 21). There is nothing in this record, beyond the notice of forfeiture, regarding a Tether account ending in 5usu; the Government has not provided any explanation of its connection to the Target Wallet or how the description in the public notice would give sufficient notice to a potential claimant.

Moreover, the Government must send notice “to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant.” Supp. R. G(4)(b)(i). The Government has submitted an affidavit from Government counsel stating that “[t]here are no known potential claimants in this case,” without any explanation. (See Dkt. No. 9-2, ¶ 4). There is no indication that the Government attempted to contact any email or mailing address associated with the Tether account seized. See, e.g., United States v. Twenty-Four Cryptocurrency Accts., 473 F. Supp. 3d 1, 4-5 (D.D.C. 2020) (finding government’s obligation to provide direct notice to potential claimants satisfied where government sent notice via certified mail and email addresses to potential claimants, relying on “know-your-customer” information obtained from cryptocurrency exchanges); see also United States v. Starling, 76 F.4th 92, 96 n.2 (2d Cir. 2023) (“The government need not provide formal service of process in a civil forfeiture proceeding; it must only give notice ‘to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government,’ and it may do so by any ‘means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.'” (quoting Supp. R. G(4)(b)(i), (iii)(A))).

Because there are additional deficiencies in the verified complaint, the Court will also consider whether the Government has satisfied the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(2). As a preliminary matter, the complaint is verified in satisfaction of Supplemental Rule G(2)(a), (Dkt. No. 1, at 1, 7); states the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over Defendant Cryptocurrency, and venue in satisfaction of Supplemental Rule G(2)(b), (id. ¶¶ 7-9); describes the property with reasonable particularity in satisfaction of Supplemental Rule G(2)(c), (id. ¶ 5); states Defendant Cryptocurrency’s location when seizure occurred and when the action was filed in satisfaction of Supplemental Rule G(2)(d), (id. ¶¶ 5-6); and identifies the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought in satisfaction of Supplemental Rule G(2)(e), (id. ¶¶ 1-3).

At issue here is whether the verified complaint “state[s] sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to [*16] meet its burden of proof at trial.” See Supp. R. G(2)(f). And because the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that Defendant Cryptocurrency was “used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense,” the Government must “establish that there was a substantial connection between” Defendant Cryptocurrency and the underlying criminal offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3).

Id. at 13-14.

Read more about the unique issues for seizures of forfeiture of cryptocurrency.

Can the Claimant Waive the Notice Requirement?

The Government might satisfy the direct notice requirements if the only known potential claimant waives notice. For example, in United States v. $156,000,000 in U.S. Currency, No. 15-cv-1732, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19403, 2016 WL 659670, at *1, the court held that no direct notice is needed when the known potential claimant waived notice as part of a settlement with the government.

Additional Resources

Search for a Notice of Forfeiture – Visit the notice search feature found on www.forfeiture.gov, managed by the Department of Justice to find the Public Search Notices. Enter the search criteria including keywords or various filters. For instance, you can use the Notice Letter ID by clicking on the link for petitions or claims. You can also search by Notice Letter ID after the online filing process has begun.

This article was last updated on Friday, June 19, 2026.