News

Seizure of Proceeds in Drug Trafficking Cases and Legal Basis

In nearly every federal drug trafficking case, the government seeks not only to convict but also seizure of assets. Cars, homes, bank accounts, and even personal belongings may be labeled as “proceeds” of drug trafficking and subject to forfeiture. For defendants, the loss of property can be just as devastating as a prison sentence.

Understanding the legal basis for these seizures and how they can be challenged is critical for anyone facing drug trafficking charges.

The Legal Framework for Seizures

Federal law provides broad authority for the government to seize property connected to drug trafficking. Key statutes include:

• 21 U.S.C. § 853 (Criminal Forfeiture). Allows forfeiture of property derived from or used to facilitate drug trafficking upon conviction.

• 21 U.S.C. § 881 (Civil Forfeiture). Permits the government to seize property believed to be connected to drug activity, even without a criminal conviction.

• Money Laundering Control Act. Allows forfeiture of assets linked to financial transactions designed to conceal or disguise drug proceeds.

These statutes give prosecutors powerful tools to strip defendants of assets, but they also create opportunities for overreach.

What the Government Claims as Proceeds

Proceeds are broadly defined as any property obtained, directly or indirectly, from drug trafficking. Examples include:

• Cash and bank accounts allegedly tied to drug sales.

• Vehicles used to transport drugs or purchased with trafficking profits.

• Real estate believed to have been bought with proceeds.

• Personal property such as jewelry, electronics, or luxury items linked to drug profits.

Because the definition is so broad, the government often seizes property even when its connection to alleged crimes is tenuous.

Common Issues With Seizures

Although the government has authority to seize assets, it must still comply with constitutional protections. Common issues include:

• Lack of a direct link. Prosecutors may claim funds are drug proceeds without clear evidence connecting them to illegal sales.

• Commingled funds. Money in joint accounts may include legitimate earnings, making it difficult to determine what portion is tainted.

• Overbroad seizures. The government may seize entire accounts or properties when only a small portion is arguably related to trafficking.

• Procedural violations. Seizures must follow statutory procedures; failures can render them unlawful.

These issues provide potential grounds for challenging seizures in court.

Defenses Against Forfeiture of Proceeds

Defendants and their attorneys can use several strategies to push back against seizures:

• Legitimate Source of Funds. Presenting pay stubs, tax returns, or business records to show assets were lawfully obtained.

• Innocent Owner Defense. Arguing that a co-owner of property had no knowledge of or involvement in the alleged trafficking.

• Due Process Arguments. Challenging seizures that occurred without notice, hearings, or sufficient evidence.

• Proportionality Challenges. Arguing that the scope of forfeiture is excessive compared to the alleged crime.

Each of these defenses requires careful documentation and legal advocacy.

The Human Impact of Seizures

Seizures are not just financial; they disrupt families and communities. Losing a car may prevent someone from working. Losing a home can displace an entire family. When bank accounts are frozen, defendants cannot pay bills, hire lawyers, or support dependents.

This human impact underscores the importance of defending against unjust forfeiture. Even when a conviction cannot be avoided, limiting or reversing forfeiture can preserve stability for families.

Why Legal Representation Is Critical

The laws governing forfeiture are complex and heavily weighted in favor of the government. Without an experienced attorney, defendants may feel powerless to fight back. An effective lawyer can:

• Examine whether the government properly linked property to drug activity.

• Identify procedural errors in the seizure process.

• File motions to release property or reduce the scope of forfeiture.

• Argue for proportionality under the Eighth Amendment.

At Glozman Law, we have successfully challenged aggressive forfeiture actions in drug trafficking cases. We understand how to protect both liberty and property.

Contact a Federal Forfeiture Defense Attorney

If your property has been seized in connection with alleged drug trafficking, you still have options. The government must prove that assets are truly proceeds of crime, and that burden can be challenged.

Contact Glozman Law today for a confidential consultation. Our attorneys will review your case, explain your defenses, and fight to protect what belongs to you.