Statute of Limitations in Forfeiture Cases

If your property was seized for forfeiture, you should act quickly to retain an experienced attorney. Your attorney must act promptly to preserve evidence (including any surveillance video of the detention or seizure) and file a claim for court action within 35 days of the issuance of the notice of seizure.

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

• a 60 day deadline to issue a notice of seizure to all interested parties in a nonjudicial (administrative) forfeiture;
• a 90 day deadline to file a complaint for forfeiture after the verified claim demanding court action is filed;
• a five-year statute of limitations deadline to initiate the civil asset forfeiture proceeding;
• a one-year statute of limitations deadline for forfeiture of fungible property as long as the action is commenced within one year from the date of the offense as explained in 18 U.S.C. § 984(a)-(b); or
• a one year statute of limitations deadline for the institution of an action to seize substitute assets under 18 U.S.C. §984, the applicable statute of limitations is one year. United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2004).

This article discusses the statute of limitations in federal civil asset forfeiture cases.

If you want to set aside a declaration of forfeiture because you did not receive notice, be aware that CAFRA requires the “motion to set aside the declaration of forfeiture” to be filed no later than five years after the date of final publication of the notice of seizure. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e).

Attorneys on Statute of Limitations in Forfeiture Cases

The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm represent clients in civil asset forfeiture actions in federal court. Contact us to discuss how the five (5) year statute of limitations for civil asset forfeiture actions might impact your case.

We can help you assert affirmative defenses, including a claim that you are an innocent owner of the seized property or that it was illegally seized. Visit our offices in downtown Tampa in Hillsborough County, New Port Richey in Pasco County, and Clearwater in Pinellas County, FL.

The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm represent clients in civil asset forfeiture cases throughout the greater Tampa Bay area and the rest of Florida.

We often work with attorneys in other jurisdictions as co-counsel to fight these cases throughout the United States. Even if we can’t take your case, we might be able to point you in the right direction.

Call 813-250-0500.

Five-Year Statute of Limitations for Forfeitures

Federal law has long recognized that the statutes of limitation that bar the rights of the government must receive strict construction. See E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 462, 44 S.Ct. 364, 366, 68 L.Ed. 788 (1924).

Under the plain language of §1621, the legislative intent in a traceable proceeds case is to give the government five (5) years after it discovers that property is tainted by its purchase with drug proceeds to commence a civil in rem forfeiture action against the property.

In other words, the civil forfeiture statute requires that an action be filed within five years after the alleged offense that gives rise to the forfeiture was discovered.

In Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S.Ct. 1216 (2013), the United States Supreme Court concluded that the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462, applies to actions for penalties, fines, and forfeitures. The five-year statute of limitations for forfeiture actions begins to run when a violation is complete rather than when it is later discovered.

One-Year Statute of Limitations to Forfeit Fungible Property under § 981(d)

Section 984 provides for forfeiture of fungible property as long as the action is commenced within one year from the date of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 984(a)-(b). Section 984 does not require the property to be traceable to a substantive offense if the government acts within the one-year time limit. The distinction is important because the one-year deadline under § 984 is shorter than the alternative statute, § 981, which has a five-year statute of limitations as explained in 19 U.S.C. § 1621.

The courts are split as to when the one-year period “commences.” For example, in United States v. Currency, $300,000 Seized from Bryant Bank Account No. XXXXX4029, No. 12-cv-2431, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50786, 2013 WL 1498972, *4 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 9, 2013), the court concluded that “[w]hat constitutes a ‘commencement’ under Section 984 is apparently an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit.”

In United States v. Funds in the amount of $193,773.00, No. 11-cv-2062, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143371, 2011 WL 6181424, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2011), the court concluded, “the parties’ arguments with respect to the one-year time limit present a difficult and unsettled issue for the Court’s consideration.”

In United States v. $8,221,877.16 in United States Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 157-61 (3rd Cir. 2003), the court found that “[S]ection 984, by its plain and unambiguous language, requires the filing of a complaint within one year of the offense.”

In United States v. Funds Representing Proceeds of Drug Trafficking, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1166 (C.D. Cal. 1999), the court concluded that: “[E]ither the filing of the complaint or the seizure ‘commence’ the action for purposes of section 984.”

Section 984 of the U.S. Code does not create a separate forfeiture action, but applies when the government seizes money or other fungible properties under § 981. When the assets cannot be physically traced once commingled or deposited, the fungible property statute found in 18 U.S.C. § 984 permits the government to “substitute” “any identical property found in the same place or account as the property involved in the offense.” United States v. Currency, 300,000 Seized from Bryant Bank Acct. No. XXX-XX-XXXX, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50786, 2013 WL 1498972, at *3.

If the proceeds constitute “specific” and “identifiable” property, the five year statute of limitations set forth in § 981(d) applies. If, however, the property is “fungible,” the statute of limitations is governed by the one year period provided for by § 984(c).

The rationale behind § 984’s one-year limitations period: “The time limitation is considered necessary to ensure that the property forfeited has a reasonable nexus to the offense giving rise to the original action for forfeiture.” All Funds, 832 F. Supp. at 558-59 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 102-28).

Congress subsequently has revised § 984 to provide that it applies to “any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is . . . funds deposited in an account in a financial institution . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 984(a)(1) (2001). Congress has also left the identical limitations period in place. 18 U.S.C. § 984(b).

In United States v. All Funds Presently on Deposit or Attempted to be Deposited in any Accounts at American Express Bank, 832 F. Supp. 542, 560 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), Judge Glasser examined Second Circuit precedent and the legislative history of § 984, before concluding that “all forfeitures of fungible property involved in money laundering or structuring violations are subject to a one-year statute of limitations [under § 984]” even if the action is brought under § 981(A)(1)(a). All Funds, 832 F. Supp. at 559 (emphasis in original). 

Other courts reaching the same decision include:

• United States v. $ 3,148,884.40 United States Currency (Seized from Accounts of Bital), 76 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D.Cal. 1999);
• United States v. Funds Representing Proceeds of Drug Trafficking in the Amount of $ 75,868.62, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1166 (C.D.Cal. 1999); and
• Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. United States, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9832, at *9, No. 93 Civ. 0307, 0357 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 1994). 

But see United States v. One Parcel of Property with Buildings, Appurtenances and Known as 170 Westfield Drive, Located in the Town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island, 34 F. Supp. 2d 107, 118 (D.R.I. 1999).

Tolling of the Statute of Limitations for Forfeiture Actions

The statute of limitations is tolled during any period of concealment. The tolling provision enables the government to file a civil forfeiture action when it learns or discovers the involvement or purchase of the property with drug proceeds.

If the § 1621 limitations period were not tolled until the government discovers the drug-tainted nature of the property, then a convicted drug trafficker would be rewarded by succeeding in his efforts to conceal the fruits of his criminal drug activities.

When the statute of limitations is asserted as a bar to pursuing a forfeiture case, the court must determine when the alleged offense actually occurred, although the government might argue that it is the discovery of the “the alleged offense” that matters.

In a traceable proceeds case, this knowledge of the connection or link of drug proceeds to the subject property might commence the running of the five-year limitations period.

Under 19 U.S.C. 1621, the government might argue the statute of limitations in a federal seizure case is the latter of either:

• two (2) years from the date that the involvement of the property in the alleged offense was discovered; or
• five (5) years from the date of discovery of the violation.

When the property subject to forfeiture is absent from the country, that time might not be counted in the statutory limitation period.

This article was last updated on Friday, March 14, 2025.