Seizure for Forfeiture of High-Value Property
When the federal government seizes property valued at more than $500,000, it must follow a specific legal process known as judicial civil asset forfeiture. This process differs from the administrative forfeiture process used for lower-value property.
After a seizure for forfeiture of high-value assets worth more than $500,000, seek the services of an experienced civil asset forfeiture lawyer at Sammis Law Firm, who can explain the unique rules and strategies that apply.
Unlike administrative forfeiture, which is handled internally by a government agency, judicial forfeiture requires the government to file a lawsuit in federal court. This lawsuit, known as a “complaint for forfeiture,” identifies the property itself as “the defendant property.” For this reason, the title of the case might be “United States v. [Description of Seized Property].
High-value assets can be seized for a criminal proceeding, a civil proceeding, or both. The criminal proceeding begins when an indictment is filed, which includes a request to forfeit the seized property, or that property may later be included in a “Bill of Indictment.”
The civil asset forfeiture proceeding begins when a “complaint for forfeiture” is filed in the U.S. District Court. In the civil action, the government does not need to prove a person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it only needs to show a preponderance of the evidence that the property itself was involved in or connected to a crime.
Forfeiture Attorneys for High-Value Assets
If your property has been seized and is valued at over $500,000, contact an experienced civil asset forfeiture attorney. The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm are experienced in handling high-value asset forfeiture cases, including those involving the seizure of cryptocurrency, real estate, or bank accounts.
An experienced civil asset forfeiture attorney at Sammis Law Firm can help you file a verified claim for your property to trigger the government’s 90-day deadline to initiate a judicial proceeding by filing a complaint for forfeiture in the U.S. District Court.
You might also triggers the government’s 90 day deadline to initiate the judicial proceeding by filing a Rule 41(g) motion for the return of property in the appropriate U.S. District Court.
During those proceedings, we can challenge the probable cause for the seizure and show why the government lacked sufficient evidence to link your property to a crime.
By aggressively fighting the forfeiture action, we can increase the chances of negotiating a more favorable outcome with the government for the return of your property. We can also file a viable motion to dismiss the forfeiture action based on a violation of your due process rights due to an unreasonable delay by the government.
Given the complexities of federal court proceedings and the high stakes involved, legal representation is not merely helpful—it is essential to navigate the process effectively and protect your rights.
An attorney can ensure that all procedural requirements are met and that your legal arguments are presented in the most compelling way possible.
Call 813-250-0500 or use the evaluation form on the right side of this article to request a confidential consultation.
Why the $500,000 Threshold Matters
When the seized property reaches the $500,000 threshold, legal consequences are triggered. For example, under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(1), the government is prohibited from using the non-judicial, or administrative, forfeiture process for real property or personal property (not including U.S. Currency) valued over this amount.
This legal requirement compels the government to adopt a more formal, court-supervised process, which affords the property owner various procedural protections.
For lower-value assets, the government must issue a “notice of seizure” that explains the property owner’s rights to avoid administrative forfeiture procedures in favor of court action. To trigger that court action, the “notice of seizure” explains to the property owner how to “file” a verified claim for court action that is sent directly to the seizing agency.
The address to send the verified claim is listed in the “notice of seizure.” Filing a “verified claim” then triggers a 90 deadline for the government to file a civil lawsuit against the “defendant property,” known as the “complaint for forfeiture.” If the government misses that 90-day deadline, the court will order the property to be returned to the property owner if the issue is raised as a defense to the complaint or in a motion for return of property.
High-value asset procedures provide less procedural protection for some purposes. For instance, the government is not required to issue a “notice of seizure.” As a result, the property owner may have no idea who seized the property or why. In some cases, the seizure warrant is filed under seal.
An experienced asset forfeiture attorney can help solve that mystery by contacting the authorities and requesting the information that would be included in the notice of seizure if the property had a lower value.
After obtaining that information, an attorney can help the property owner trigger the 90-day deadline to file the complaint for forfeiture by serving the seizing agency with a “verified claim” or by filing a motion for return of property in the U.S. District Court.
Does the 90 day deadline in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3) apply?
Some confusion exists over whether federal law provides a specific statutory deadline for the government to initiate a judicial forfeiture action when the property is valued at $500,000 or more.
Is the claimant forced to just wait on the government to initiate judicial forfeiture by filing a complaint for forfeiture? Or can the claimant trigger the 90 day deadline listed in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3) by:
- filing a verified claim for court action with the agency that seized the property; or
- filing an equitable action
- filing a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) for the return of property.
Although the law is not well settled in this regard, the provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 983 apply to both administrative and judicial forfeitures.
The statutory language in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3) requires that not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the property pending the filing of a complaint, except that a court in the district in which the complaint will be filed may extend the period for filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.
The government might argue that 18 U.S.C. § 983(a) applies only to “nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding[s],” also called “administrative forfeiture proceedings,” that permit the Government to obtain forfeiture of seized property without involvement of the judiciary.
The government might argue that the deadlines set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 983(a)(2) and (a)(3) do not apply when high value property worth $500,000 or more is seized because 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(1) would not permit a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding.
“Although subsection (a)(2)(A) of § 983 allows a seized asset claim to be filed ‘after the seizure,’ it also requires that the claim be directed to ‘property seized in a ‘nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding.’” Langbord v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, 832 F.3d 170, 182 (3d Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “This language presupposes that a nonjudicial forfeiture is pending before a proper seized asset claim can be filed.” Id.
But “a seizure is neither the same as a forfeiture nor does it automatically trigger forfeiture proceedings.” Id. at 184; see also id. at 185 (“we reject the Langbords’ premise that the Government initiated a ‘nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding’ subject to CAFRA’s ninety-day deadline” when it seized rare coins).
The Due Process Clause and Timeliness
Even if the 90 day deadline in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3) does not apply, the government might argue that although Congress has not mandated a deadline for commencing forfeiture actions in cases involving property ineligible for administrative forfeiture, courts have applied the Due Process Clause to set limits on how long the government may retain seized property absent the initiation of forfeiture proceedings.
In United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in U.S. Currency, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) (holding that the balancing test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, provides the framework for determining whether the delay in filing a forfeiture action was reasonable). A lengthy, unexplained delay by the government could be grounds for an attorney to challenge the forfeiture and demand the return of the property.
The Barker v. Wingo test, as applied by the court in $8,850, considers the following four factors:
- The length of the delay
- The government’s reason for the delay
- The Claimant’s assertion of their right to a speedy resolution
- Prejudice to the Claimant as a result of the delay
As to the first factor, the government might cite the following cases showing that longer delays have been allowed by the court including:
- United States v. $874,938.00 U.S. Currency, 999 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1993), an eleven-month delay was not found to be unreasonable.
- United States v. $ 292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1995) (thirty months was insufficient delay to violate due process);
- United States v. Turner, 933 F.2d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 1991) (sixteen months was insufficient delay to violate due process);
- United States v. $ 47,980 in Canadian Currency, 804 F.2d 1085, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 1986) (fourteen months was insufficient delay to violate due process);
- United States v. $ 874,938.00 in U.S. Currency, 999 F.2d 1323, 1325-26 (9th Cir. 1993) (eleven months was insufficient delay to violate due process);
- United States v. Two Hundred Ninety-Five Ivory Carvings, 726 F.2d at 530 (9th Cir. 1984)(refusing to uphold the district court’s decision that due process was violated by the government’s nineteenmonth delay in initiating civil forfeiture proceedings because the Barker factors had not been evaluated).
Where periods of between eight and twenty-two months from seizure to the institution of judicial forfeiture proceedings occurred, the courts in the following cases found the delay violated due process:
- United States v. A Quantity of Gold Jewelry, 379 F. Supp. 283 (C.D. Cal. 1974), aff’d in relevant part, 554 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1977) (summary judgment granted owing to twenty-two month delay);
- United States v. Eight Rhodesian Stone Statues, 449 F. Supp. 193 (C.D. Cal. 1978) (sixteen month delay violated due process);
- Sarkisian v. United States, 472 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1973)(nine month delay violated due process);
- United States v. 1976 One Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 620 F.2d 295 (4th Cir. 1980) (eight months violated due process).
Since the third factor contemplates the Claimant asserting their right to speedy resolution, it also makes sense to file a verified claim with the seizing agency or with a motion for return of property filed in the appropriate U.S. District Court. In United States v. $874,938.00 United States Currency, 999 F.2d 1323, 1326. In $ 8,850, the Supreme Court held that “failure to use these remedies [to expedite forfeiture proceedings] can be taken as some indication that [claimant] did not desire an early judicial hearing.” $ 8,850, 461 U.S. at 569.
Although those cases involve reasons for the delay including failure by a claimant to request forfeiture proceedings, government mistake, or the necessity of concluding administrative proceedings or criminal investigations prior to the filing of a judicial forfeiture proceeding.
Conclusion
If your high-value property worth more than $500,000 was seized for forfeiture, contact an experienced civil asset forfeiture attorney at Sammis Law Firm. We understand the special rules that apply in these cases and the best strategies.
We are experienced in handling high-value asset forfeiture cases, including those involving the seizure of cryptocurrency, real estate, or bank accounts.
Additional Resources
JM 9-112.110 – Administrative Forfeiture Policy – Visit the Justice Manual (JM), previously known as the United States Attorneys’ Manual (USAM), on Justice.gov. Manual Title 9: Section 9-112.110 on Administrative and Judicial Forfeiture explains why assets subject to administrative forfeiture must be forfeited administratively, unless an exception applies. One exception applies when several items (other than U.S. Currency) are subject to civil forfeiture under the same statutory authority and on the same factual basis, and they have a common owner and a combined appraised value exceeding $500,000. In such cases, the property must be forfeited judicially in a single action. Although there is no limit on the value of currency that can be forfeited administratively, bank accounts are not classified as currency, so a bank account containing more than $500,000 must be forfeited judicially.
This article was last updated on Friday, October 24, 2025.