Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000: Overview of Public Law 106-185 (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (18 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
June 2, 2000 |
| Report Number |
RL30576 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Paul S. Wallace, Jr., American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Forfeiture has long provided both a deterrent against crime as well as a form of punishment for
the
criminal. (1) Federal confiscation procedures, however, were sometimes seen
to be unfair. Public Law
No. 106-185, signed into law by President Clinton on April 25, 2000 is intended to make, federal
forfeiture procedures more fair and yet more effective. The Act will raise the standards the
government must meet when it seeks to take property from private citizens suspected of drug
trafficking or other crimes. Some of the major changes made by the Act which were the result of
a compromise between a bipartisan group of legislators and Attorney General Janet Reno include:
(1) raising the Government's standard of proof to one of preponderance of the evidence; (2)
supplying indigent defendants with legal representation in forfeiture cases if they already have
appointed counsel in a related criminal case or had real property, such as a business or house, which
was seized by the Government; (3) expanding the innocent owner defense; (4) permitting property
owners, in cases of substantial hardship, to maintain temporary custody of the property subject to a
forfeiture contest; (5) allowing successful forfeiture claimants to recover interest and for damages
to their property suffered while in Government possession; (6) empowering the courts to dismiss the
forfeiture challenges of fugitive property claimants; (7) enlarging the Government's forfeiture
authority over the proceeds of a substantial number of crimes previously beyond its reach; (8)
recognizing the authority of the federal courts to enforce foreign forfeiture judgments; (9) allowing
federal prosecutors to share certain grand jury information for civil forfeiture purposes; and (10)
affording the Government the option of proceeding under criminal forfeiture procedures in any
instance in which it might invoke civil forfeiture procedures.
1. Â See H. Rept. 106th-192, 106th Cong. 1st
Sess., at 5.
