Opinion ID: 852164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In Rem Forfeiture

Text: In rem forfeiture is an ancient concept under which courts obtained jurisdiction over property when it was virtually impossible to seek justice against property owners guilty of violating maritime law because they were overseas. Civil forfeiture traces to ancient Roman and medieval English law; both made objects used to violate the law subject to forfeiture to the sovereign. See United States v. 785 St. Nicholas Ave., 983 F.2d 396, 401-02 (2d Cir.1993). Civil forfeiture is no longer tethered to difficulties in obtaining personal jurisdiction over an individual. It now serves as one of the most potent weapons in the judicial armamentarium, See United States v. 384-390 West Broadway, 964 F.2d 1244, 1248 (1st Cir.1992) (discussing widespread use of in rem proceedings against drug offenders). Civil forfeiture is a leading method for imposing economic sanctions against narcotics traffickers. Today, all states have statutory provisions for some form of asset forfeiture, and there are more than four hundred federal forfeiture statutes relating to various federal crimes. Marian R. Williams, Jefferson E. Holcomb, Tomislav V. Kovandzic & Scott Bullock, Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture 11 (2010). An important feature of many of these statutes is characterization of the process as civil forfeiture under which (by contrast to criminal forfeiture) a property owner need not be found guilty of a crimeor even chargedto lose permanently their cash, car, home or other property. The relative ease of effecting such forfeiture and the disposition of the assets have become a matter of public note. [1]