|
|
|
The Relation-Back Doctrine; Forfeiture of Property Transferred to Third Parties; Bar on Third-Party Intervention - Ch 21 - Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States - Third Edition
Pages:
ISBN:
Published On:
Updated On:
22087
DwnLdItem
PDF Chapter
Do Not Offer
Have a question? Email us about this product!
Available Format
|
Additional Information |
Originally from Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States, Third Edition § 21-1 Overview In civil forfeiture cases, any person with an interest in the property is able to intervene in the forfeiture proceeding and contest the Government’s ability to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture. Hence, at the conclusion of a civil forfeiture case, the Government is able to obtain title to the property against the world. There is no one who can claim that he was excluded from the process, and thus no one who can claim that he did not have a fair opportunity to defend his interests in court. In contrast, criminal forfeiture cases involve only the Government and the defendant; indeed, third parties are explicitly precluded by statute from participating in a criminal forfeiture case until after the forfeitability of the property has been established. Obviously, there would be serious due process concerns if the trial in such a case could result in the forfeiture of the property of a person who was excluded from participating in the proceeding. Thus, a criminal case cannot result in the forfeiture of a third party’s property. As we will see in Chapter 23, Congress created the ancillary proceeding to serve as a forum for adjudicating third party interests. If a third party can establish, in the ancillary proceeding, that the property belongs to him and not to the defendant, he will prevail, even though the Government has already established that the property is subject to forfeiture. In drafting the criminal forfeiture statutes, however, Congress realized that this scheme contained an inherent flaw: if a criminal forfeiture could not result in the forfeiture of a third party’s property, defendants could attempt to insulate their property from forfeiture by transferring it to third parties before the forfeiture proceeding was complete. The device Congress designed to avoid this problem is called the relation back doctrine.
Stefan D. Cassella, as a federal prosecutor, was one of the federal government's leading experts on asset forfeiture law for over thirty years, and now serves as an expert witness and consultant to law enforcement agencies and the financial sector as the CEO of AssetForfeitureLaw, LLC.
|
|
|
|
|
|