Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Mary Wilson v. United States of America, et al.

Case No.: 22-2087

Officials: Easterbrook, Wood, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges

Focus: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act

While at O’Hare airport, Wilson was traveling with $33,783 in cash. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) became suspicious that the money might be linked to illegal drug activity and subsequently seized it. The DEA informed Wilson that they intended to declare the seized cash as government property through administrative forfeiture. According to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(1)(A), Wilson was required to submit a “claim” to the DEA by September 25, 2020. It was crucial for her to adhere to this deadline as failing to do so would waive her right to contest the forfeiture.

Regrettably, on September 18, 2020, Wilson’s attorney mistakenly filed the wrong form, a “petition for remission,” which is meant to request a reduction in the amount subject to forfeiture. It was only around five months later that the attorney realized the error and promptly sent a letter to correct it. However, the DEA declined to rectify the mistake.

Subsequently, Wilson attempted to seek recovery of the seized property through a Motion to Recover Seized Property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of her motion as this rule can only be invoked before forfeiture proceedings are initiated. The CAFRA was designed to be the exclusive remedy for challenging a declaration of forfeiture, and Wilson did not challenge the notice she received from the DEA. Her argument amounted to a request for equitable relief, but Congress has not authorized any other means for challenging a declaration of forfeiture in federal court, apart from those based on notice issues.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/01/23

Full Text