Drug Crime Forfeitures under Section 881(a)(6)
Under 21 U.S.C. Section 881 the government might seize certain property related to drug crimes. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), (b). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the [s]tates, of any action or proceeding for the recovery or enforcement of any . . . forfeiture.” 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a).
In fact, the most common theory for civil asset forfeiture in federal court falls under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The Controlled Substances Act provides for the civil forfeiture of money and other things of value if the property was:
- furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance;
- all proceeds traceable to such an exchange; and
- all moneys used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
At trial, the government must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3) requires the government to establish by a preponderance of evidence a substantial connection between the property and the offense. United States v. $291,828.00 in U.S. Currency, 536 F.3d 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2008).
If the government establishes that the property is subject to forfeiture, the claimant can assert an “innocent owner defense” by establishing that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 983(d).
Related grounds for forfeiture alleged by the federal government in drug crime cases include 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A)6 for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (attempting or conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act).
Attorneys for Drug Crime Forfeiture Actions in Federal Court
If the government seized your property after alleging it was involved in a drug crime, contact the civil asset forfeiture attorneys at Sammis Law Firm in Tampa, FL. We help our clients get their property back by immediately filing a claim for forfeiture, even before the “notice of seizure” letter arrives in the mail.
Contact us to find out why filing a claim for court action is much better than filing a petition for remission or mitigation. Filing a petition typically means a much longer delay and the possibility that the claim will be denied nine months later with a form letter. With a claim for court action, the agency no longer gets to decide what happens to the property, which might give you a much better chance of getting the property back quickly.
After filing the verified claim, we can negotiate with the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case. If the AUSA files a complaint for forfeiture in the U.S. District Court, we can help you file a motion to dismiss the complaint, answer, and demand that the government pay your attorney fees if you substantially prevail on the merits of your claim.
Act quickly. Call 813-250-0500.
Factors Indicating the Property is Drug Proceeds
Under Section 881(a)(6), the government is not necessarily required to conclusively prove the seized currency or property is directly connected to a particular drug transaction. Instead, the government might attempt to show that the property is related to some illegal drug transaction as demonstrated by the totality of the circumstances. Factors that support probable cause for the initial seizure of property might include finding:
- large sums of currency;
- currency packaged with rubber bands, cellophane, or vacuum sealed bags;
- finding currency located near illegal drugs indicates illegal drug activity.
When a large amount of currency is seized, the court will look for evidence of legitimate sources of income. The government will often argue the claimant has a lack of apparent, verifiable, or legitimate source of substantial income. In other words, the courts will consider whether the claimant has any legitimate income sufficient to explain the large amount of currency found.
In Rem Jurisdiction under Section 881
Forfeiture actions initiated under section 881 are actions “in rem.” Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 84, 113 S. Ct. 554, 121 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1992). “Disposition of the property is an integral part of the court’s ability to grant the relief sought in the proceedings.” United States v. $270,000.00 in U.S. Currency, Plus Int., 1 F.3d 1146, 1148 (11th Cir. 1993).
As a result, “[i]n rem jurisdiction derives entirely from the [federal] court’s control over the defendant res.” United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop. in Greene & Tuscaloosa Cntys., 941 F.2d 1428, 1435 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citations omitted). The courts have found “that a valid seizure of the res is a prerequisite to the initiation of an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding.” Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami, 506 U.S. at 84 (citations omitted).
In rem jurisdiction is exclusive. For this reason, “[a] state court and a federal court cannot simultaneously exercise in rem jurisdiction over the same property.” United States v. $270,000.00 in U.S. Currency, Plus Int., 1 F.3d 1146, 1147-48(11th Cir.1993).
This article was last updated on Friday, May 23, 2025.
