Innocent Owner Defense
After the Government has sustained its initial burden of proof on forfeitability, federal law entitles any claimant with standing to assert the innocent owner’s defense. The rules for qualifying as an innocent owner of the property are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 983(d).
In addition to punishing drug dealers through civil forfeiture, § 881(a)(6) protects unwitting or innocent owners by explaining that “no property shall be forfeited … to the extent of the interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.”
As to a wrongdoer, any amount of the invested proceeds traceable to drug activities forfeits the entire property. In other words, if one is a wrongdoer, the full value of the real property is forfeitable because some of the funds invested are traceable. On the other hand, if a person is an innocent owner, then no amount of that person’s or entity’s funds are forfeitable.
Attorneys for “Innocent Owner ” Forfeiture Defense
If your property was seized by federal agents in a civil asset forfeiture action, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Sebastian Rucci represents clients throughout the United States after a seizure. Hi is particularly experienced with seizures of cash. Defenses include unreasonable and illegal searches or seizures, prolonged detentions, entrapment, duress, and undue delay in bringing a forfeiture action.
Of these defenses, the “innocent owner” defense is by far the most frequently utilized. This defense involves a property owner who claims that he or she is uninvolved in and unaware of the illegal activity that is the basis for the forfeiture and that he or she took every reasonable precaution to prevent the misuse of the property.
Forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci can help you assert the affirmative defense of innocent ownership. He understands how the civil asset forfeiture statutes differentiate between “wrongdoers” and “innocent owners.” He can help you assert the innocent owner’s defense when the facts show that you had no knowledge of the illegal activities and did not consent to the illegal activities.
Newspaper Articles About Forfeiture Abuses
USA Today (7-16-2021): Innocent people shouldn’t lose cash to forfeiture
LA TIMES (9-23-2022): FBI misled the Judge on Beverly Hills safe deposit box seizure
Differentiating Between the Wrongdoer and the Innocent Owner
The burden is on the claimant, not the government, to prove innocent ownership. In other words, the government need not prove, and the district court need not find, that the claimant had actual knowledge. Instead, it is the claimant’s responsibility to prove the absence of actual knowledge.
The innocent owner’s defense is based on actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge, that existed at the time of the transfer and not at the time of the illegal activity. See United States v. 6640 SW 48th St., 41 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir.1995).
This rule prohibits profit by the post-illegal act transferees who knowingly take an interest in the forfeitable property. The innocent owner’s defense is not available just because the person was not on the scene early enough to consent to the illegal activity. In other words, the post-illegal act transferee cannot assert the innocent owner’s defense to forfeiture if he could know of the illegal activity which would subject property to forfeiture at the time he takes his interest. When considering the innocent owner’s defense, the courts are looking to see if a “strawman” setup is being used to conceal the financial affairs of illegal dealings of someone else.
Civil asset forfeiture is state-sanctioned robbery and is the great injustice of our time.
[av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-s…