Federal Asset Forfeiture Attorney in Indiana
Josiah Swinney Indianapolis Lawyer

Josiah Swinney is a distinguished criminal attorney based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Josiah is renowned for his exceptional litigation skills and unwavering dedication to defending the rights of his clients. With a career marked by a reputation for excellence, Josiah is a formidable trial attorney. Call Josiah directly at 317-753-7134 for a free consultation about any criminal matter in the State of Indiana.

Federal Asset Forfeiture Deadlines: An Overview            

Federal civil asset forfeiture is governed by statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 983 and the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), which establish strict procedural timelines to balance government interests with property owners’ rights. Below is a summary explanation of key deadlines and general principles of law:

1. Notice of Seizure – 60 Days (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1))

    • The government must send written notice of the seizure to interested parties within 60 days of the property being seized. This applies to administrative forfeiture proceedings and is intended to inform owners of their rights and options promptly.
    • If the government fails to meet this deadline, the property must be returned unless an extension is granted by a court for “good cause” (e.g., complex investigations or difficulty identifying owners). This notice must be sent “as soon as practicable,” but no later than 60 days, unless the seizure involves a criminal warrant, in which case other timelines may apply. The notice typically includes details about the seized property, the legal basis for forfeiture, and instructions for contesting it.

2. Filing a Claim – 35 Days (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2))

    • After receiving the notice, a claimant has 35 days to file a verified claim with the seizing agency to contest the forfeiture and demand judicial review. This forces the government to either return the property or escalate the case to federal court.
    • This deadline can be shorter if specified in the notice (e.g., 30 days from the last publication of seizure notice if personal notice wasn’t received). Filing a claim shifts the burden to the government to justify the seizure in court, rather than resolving it administratively. Missing this deadline typically waives the right to judicial review, leaving only the option of a petition for remission, which doesn’t challenge the seizure’s legality.

3. Government’s Complaint Filing – 90 Days (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A))

    • Once a claim is filed, the government has 90 days to either file a civil forfeiture complaint in U.S. District Court or return the property. This deadline ensures the government acts swiftly when challenged.
    • This is a critical protection under CAFRA, preventing indefinite retention of property without judicial oversight. If the government misses this deadline, the claimant can seek remedies like a motion for return of property or damages under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Courts may grant extensions for “good cause” (e.g., ongoing criminal investigations), but only if the government requests it timely.

4. Motion to Dismiss – Governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

    • After the government files its complaint, a claimant can file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The government must allege sufficient facts to show the property is forfeitable, with heightened specificity due to CAFRA’s requirements (Supplemental Rule G(2)).
    • This motion tests the complaint’s legal sufficiency—e.g., whether the government can prove by a preponderance of evidence that the property was linked to a crime. Common defenses include lack of probable cause, statute of limitations (5 years under 19 U.S.C. § 1621), or Fourth/Fifth Amendment violations. A successful motion can end the case early, potentially entitling the claimant to attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1) if they “substantially prevail.”

5. Statute of Limitations – 5 Years (19 U.S.C. § 1621)

    • The government must initiate forfeiture proceedings within 5 years of the alleged offense, though this can be tolled if the property’s involvement was concealed and only later discovered.
    • The clock starts when the government discovers the property’s connection to a crime, not necessarily the crime itself. For example, in drug proceeds cases, if the government uncovers the link years later, the statute may still apply. Claimants can challenge forfeiture as time-barred, a potent defense if evidence of the offense predates the 5-year window.

6. Extensions and Exceptions

    • Courts can extend deadlines under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) for good cause or by party agreement. Some districts (e.g., Southern District of Florida) have issued administrative orders extending CAFRA deadlines by 60 days due to case complexity or agency backlogs.
    • Agencies like the ATF or Secret Service often seek extensions when investigations overlap with forfeiture actions. Claimants can oppose extensions if they prejudice their rights (e.g., prolonged deprivation of property). The government bears the burden to justify delays, and failure to do so can lead to property release.

Practical Implications and Strategic Considerations

    • Immediate Action: Retaining counsel as soon as possible is important.  Some individuals even choose to file a claim preemptively (even before notice arrives) to preserve rights. It is also important to preserve evidence (e.g., surveillance footage) to challenge probable cause.
    • Judicial vs. Administrative Options: Filing a claim triggers judicial review, offering constitutional protections, whereas a petition for remission (due within 30 days of notice per 28 C.F.R. § 9.3(a)) is an administrative plea for leniency with no legal challenge. 
    • Attorney Fees: Under CAFRA (28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1)), prevailing claimants can recover reasonable attorney fees, a deterrent to frivolous government actions noted by both sites.

Indiana Asset Forfieture in Broader Context 

As of today, civil asset forfeiture remains controversial, with ongoing reform efforts. CAFRA’s deadlines aim to curb abuses, but critics argue they’re insufficient when agencies exploit extensions or equitable sharing with state police to bypass stricter local laws. Claimants must act decisively within these timelines, leveraging legal counsel to navigate procedural traps and assert defenses like unlawful seizure or excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment (per Timbs v. Indiana, 2019).

Call Indiana Criminal Attorney Josiah Swinney for a free Consultation 

If you need to speak with a criminal lawyer in Indianapolis, or a criminal attorney regarding an Indiana case and are willing to pay top dollar for an attorney who is truly dedicated to the pursuit of your best interests, call Josiah Swinney today at 317-753-7134. Josiah Swinney has also worked closely with Jeff Cardella, the attorney who successfully challenged the Indiana Forfeiture law as being unconstitutional.

DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an Indiana Criminal Defense attorney or attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.  Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.