Asset forfeiture has become one of the most controversial practices in the American criminal justice system. Under federal and state forfeiture laws, the government can seize cash, vehicles, homes, and other property that it claims are connected to criminal activity. While intended to disrupt criminal enterprises, forfeiture laws also allow law enforcement agencies to keep or profit from the assets they seize. This creates troubling financial incentives that can undermine fairness and due process.
For individuals facing forfeiture, one defense strategy is to challenge the government’s profit motives and highlight how they may have influenced the case.
There are two main types of forfeiture:
In both contexts, law enforcement agencies often benefit directly from forfeited assets. Funds may be used to purchase equipment, fund investigations, or even supplement agency budgets. Critics argue that this financial incentive encourages aggressive seizures, sometimes with little evidence.
The structure of forfeiture laws can create situations where agencies prioritize revenue over justice. Examples include:
When the government has a direct financial stake in the outcome, the impartiality of the process can reasonably be questioned.
Defense attorneys can raise concerns about financial incentives in several ways:
These strategies do not guarantee dismissal of a forfeiture action, but they add powerful arguments that may persuade judges to rein in government overreach.
The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have increasingly scrutinized forfeiture practices. In Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to the states, directly impacting civil forfeiture cases.
Other decisions have required the government to meet higher evidentiary standards and provide stronger connections between the property and alleged crimes. These rulings create opportunities for defense attorneys to push back against forfeiture driven more by profit than justice.
Challenging forfeiture is complex. It requires not only understanding the law but also knowing how to frame arguments in ways courts are willing to consider. An experienced attorney can:
At Glozman Law, we have successfully defended clients against aggressive forfeiture actions. We understand how to uncover and challenge government profit motives while protecting property rights.
If your assets have been seized by the government, do not assume the forfeiture is final. Financial incentives often drive these cases, and they can be challenged in court.
Contact Glozman Law today for a confidential consultation. We will review your case, explain your options, and fight to protect your property from unjust forfeiture.
Stay informed on federal and white collar defense trends from Glozman Law.