The federal government has the power in certain circumstances to freeze a defendant’s assets before trial and conviction. This can have serious implications for the accused as it may leave them with little money to pay an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this concern in Luis vs United States, imposing important limits on the government’s rights.
Asset freezes before conviction are permitted where the government has probable cause to believe the defendant has ill-gotten funds and there is a good chance that those funds could dissipate before the conclusion of the case. That would leave little to no money for the payment of financial penalties, such as statutory fines, restitution, and forfeiture in the event the defendant is convicted.
Some pre-conviction asset freezes raised a constitutional issue. In the Luis case, Sila Luis was accused of healthcare fraud related to the provision of home care services. The government froze $2 million of her assets, including assets that were not directly linked to the crime relying on federal law 18 USC §1345. Under that law, the government could freeze (1) property obtained as a result of the crime, (2) property traceable to the crime, and (3) other property of equivalent value.
Luis appealed the lower court’s decision to freeze unrelated property arguing that it violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. By freezing all her assets, she was prevented from paying her chosen attorney.
The government contended that there were strong governmental interests in preserving funds for payment of fines, restitution, and forfeiture and in preventing defendants from retaining ill-gotten gains. Further, Luis could still obtain a court-appointed attorney.
The Supreme Court found in favor of Luis holding that freezing unrelated and untainted assets before trial and conviction violated the Sixth Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s limit on the government’s power to freeze assets unrelated to the alleged crime is critical to defendants. It provides them with resources to pay their chosen lawyer as well as to pay other necessary expenses for themselves and their family members. However, it’s important to note that the decision only applies to untainted assets. The government can still freeze assets that are either obtained as a result of or traceable to the crime even if those funds are needed to hire a lawyer.
Hiring a skilled criminal attorney can make a substantial difference in your case. Your attorney can help ensure that the government acts appropriately whether that involves asset freezes or any other issue. If you are accused of a crime or under investigation, contact our firm. We have extensive experience with a wide range of federal crimes and can assist you through every stage of your case.