Motion to Dismiss a Civil Asset Forfeiture Complaint
In a civil asset forfeiture case, the Claimant might file a judicial claim and motion to dismiss the complaint, instead of filing an answer and asserting affirmative defenses.
The motion to dismiss might address:
- Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
- Motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds
- Motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction
- Motion to dismiss due to lack of venue
This article discusses filing a motion to dismiss if the government’s forfeiture complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(8)(b)(i). Rule 12(b)(6) allows motions to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In the forfeiture context, to state a claim, a complaint must “state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(2)(f).
At trial, the Government must prove, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Property is subject to forfeiture when it is “involved in a transaction or attempted transaction” that violates any one of several statutes. 18 U.S.C. § 981. Those statutes include:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (“Laundering of monetary instruments”)
- § 1957 (“Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity”), and
- § 1960 (“Prohibition of unlicensed money transmitting businesses”).
“[T]he Government is not required to allege in the complaint all of the facts and evidence at its disposal. It is sufficient for the Government to . . . plead enough facts for the claimant to understand the theory of forfeiture, to file a responsive pleading, and to undertake an adequate investigation.” United States v. 506,069.09 Seized from First Merit Bank, 664 Fed. Appx. 422, 434 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. $22,173.00 in U.S. Currency, 716 F. Supp. 2d 245, 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)).
Since Rule G(2)(f) requires “detailed facts,” it is a heightened pleading standard “designed to guard against the improper use of seizure proceedings and to protect property owners against the threat of seizure upon conclusory allegations.” United States v. One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft, 941 F. Supp. 2d 1, 14 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing U.S. v. Mondragon, 313 F.3d 862, 865 (4th Cir. 2002)).
In addition to the government’s obligation to plead “detailed facts” under the heightened pleading standard of Rule G(2)(f), the Government must also plead “either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” United States v. 506,069.09 Seized from First Merit Bank, 664 Fed. Appx. 422, 434 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Havard v. Wayne County, 436 F. App’x 451, 457 (6th Cir. 2011)) (emphasis added).
List of Cases Dismissed Because the Government’s Forfeiture Complainted Failed to State a Claim
In the following post-CAFRA cases, the court granted a motion to dismiss a forfeiture complaint based on the insufficiency of the government’s forfeiture complaint:
In United States v. Currency 65.08094134 Bitcoin, No. 2:23-cv-10394, 2026 LX 461899, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2026), the court granted the claimant’s motion to dismiss because the government’s complaint lacked detailed allegations. The court found the Government failed to plead adequate detail about the connection between the assets and anything criminal.
In United States v. Approximately $2,004,184.65 in U.S. Currency, No. 2:24-cv-00685 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 5, 2025) (order granting in part motion to dismiss), the court granted the motion to dismiss because the government failed to satisfy the heightened pleading threshold of Supplemental Rule G(2)(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a civil forfeiture complaint to plead “sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial”. Although the government alleged that the company submitted over 5,800 claims resulting in millions in Medicare reimbursements where referring physicians conducted phone consults instead of face-to-face visits, it failed to allege scienter—namely, that anyone in the company had knowledge that the claims were fraudulent or that the physicians failed to satisfy regulatory encounter rules. Moreover, the court held that the government failed to plead a fraudulent “scheme” under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, noting the complaint’s own factual admissions that nearly 95% of patients evaluated qualified for and required the durable medical equipment. Because the government also conceded it could not support its money laundering allegations, the court concluded that only three specific beneficiary claims—totaling $6,600, where equipment was delivered without any physician or supplier contact—supported an inference of fraudulent knowledge. As a result, the court dismissed the forfeiture complaint without prejudice as to all remaining funds in the $2,004,184.65 account and granted the government 14 days of leave to amend.
In United States v. $16,037.00 United States Currency, No. 19-cv-1056, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154225, 2022 WL 3701197, at *5-9 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022), in an action under 21 U.S.C.S. § 881(a)(6), the government alleged that the defendant currency was subject to civil forfeiture. The claimant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted because the government failed to support the theory that the defendant currency was the proceeds of narcotics trafficking. Moreover, in the absence of any other allegations that the claimant was trafficking narcotics, the large number of bundled bills failed even to suggest a substantial connection between the property and the alleged criminal offense as pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(c).
In One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft, 941 F. Supp. 2d 1, 14, 16 (D.D.C. 2013), the court dismissed the forfeiture complaint for failure to comply with Rule G(2)(f) and noting that, “[a]bsent some specific indication that the [property] is derived from or traceable to illicit activity, the complaint must be dismissed.”
In United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 157 (3d Cir. 2003), the court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
This article was last updated on Friday, October 2, 2026.
