21 U.S.C. § 881(A)(6)

43 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Four Million
  762 F.2d 895· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the currency and bank account funds were forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) because the government established probable cause of a substantial connection to narcotics transactions, and the claimant failed to prove lack of knowledge or that the funds were
• United States v. Banco Cafetero Panama
  797 F.2d 1154· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 69×
  Bank accounts holding funds traceable to narcotics transactions are forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), and due process does not require an immediate post-seizure probable cause hearing before trial.
• United States v. $2
  689 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-08 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the allocation of the burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings, which places the burden on the claimant, does not violate due process, even when the underlying conduct is also a crime.
• United States v. Twenty-Two Thousand
  709 F.2d 442· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the search warrant, though not fully compliant with Rule 41(c)(1), satisfied the Fourth Amendment, and the exclusionary rule should not be applied to the evidence seized. Therefore, there was sufficient probable cause for the forfeiture proceeding.
• United States v. $39
  801 F.2d 1210· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 39×
  Civil forfeiture complaints under 21 U.S.C. § 881 must comply with Supplemental Rule E(2)(a), requiring specific factual allegations to support an inference of forfeiture, not just notice pleading.
• United States v. Parcels OF Land
  903 F.2d 36· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government established sufficient probable cause for forfeiture and that the district court did not err in striking the appellant's affidavit after he invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege at his deposition.
• United States v. $321
  874 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-05 ·cited 26×
  A colorably lawful possessory interest in seized property is required to contest forfeiture, and a mere courier of unexplained cash lacks such an interest.
• United States v. Seventy-Three Thousand
  710 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the initial encounter was a consensual police-citizen interaction, not a seizure, and that the claimant voluntarily consented to the search of his travel bag, thus affirming the forfeiture of the currency.
• United States v. ONE Single Fam. Residence Located AT 15603 85TH Ave. N.
  933 F.2d 976· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 20×
  A co-owner who knowingly commingles legitimate funds with drug proceeds, and is aware of the co-owner's illegal activities, is not an "innocent owner" under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and subjects their entire interest to forfeiture.
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop.
  763 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Angula's motion to set aside the default decree because her failure to file was not willful, the government would not be prejudiced, and she presented a meritorious defense.
• In re Seizure Warrant. Appeal of Cyril Onwuasoanya
  830 F.2d 372· D.C. Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 17×
  A person cannot obtain the return of property seized for civil forfeiture under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e).
• United States v. $47
  746 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 17×
  Claimants lacked standing to contest the forfeiture because they failed to establish a recognizable legal or equitable interest in the seized currency.
• United States Drug Enf't Agency v. 228 Acres OF Land & Dwelling Located ON Whites Hill Rd. IN Chester
  916 F.2d 808· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defaults and that probable cause for forfeiture was sufficiently established by the government.
• United States v. Amaryllis Thomas
  913 F.2d 1111· 4th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government met its burden of demonstrating probable cause that the properties were proceeds of illegal drug transactions, despite the district court's contrary finding.
• In the Case of ONE 1985 Nissan v. Walker
  889 F.2d 1317· 4th Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that innocent transferees from a drug dealer remain subject to forfeiture for the proceeds of drug activity because they were not innocent purchasers 'for value'.
• Boas v. Smith
  786 F.2d 605· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that administrative forfeiture of the automobile was improper due to its value exceeding $10,000, and the $20,000 currency was not forfeitable as it remained under government control; however, the promissory note was subject to forfeiture based on probable cause co
• United States v. $29
  745 F.2d 853· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the initial warrantless search of the automobile was valid under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, and therefore did not taint the subsequent search and seizure of the money.
• United States v. White
  660 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into White's apartment was permissible due to consent obtained by ruse as part of an ongoing investigation, and that the seized currency was lawfully seized as potential proceeds of criminal activity. The convictions for possession with i
• United States v. Land
  937 F.2d 98· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 11×
  A donee of money traceable to drug transactions can assert an innocent owner defense under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) even if not a bona fide purchaser for value.
• United States v. Ninety ONE Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Dollars ($91
  897 F.2d 1457· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the DEA agents' encounter with the appellant was consensual and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, and that sufficient probable cause existed to forfeit the seized currency as drug proceeds.
• United States v. Lots 12
  869 F.2d 942· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that summary judgment against the wife's innocent owner claim was improper because the government failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding her knowledge or consent.
• United States v. TWP 17 R 4
  970 F.2d 984· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that posting an arrest warrant for real property in an in rem forfeiture action does not constitute a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, nor does it rise to the level of deprivation requiring a pre-deprivation hearing under the F
• United States v. Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50
  757 F.2d 103· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The government must prove probable cause for a statutory violation, including intentionality, to forfeit property; the claimant can use the entrapment defense to show no violation occurred.
• United States v. Fifty-Three Thousand Eighty-Two Dollars IN United States Currency
  985 F.2d 245· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's evidence was sufficient to survive the claimant's motion for summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action.
• United States v. ONE LOT OF U.S. Currency ($68
  927 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the claimant failed to present a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment, and the district court properly ignored the claimant's improperly styled counterclaim for personal property.
• United States v. Perez
  707 F.2d 359· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The government exhibit, consisting of marked currency, constituted a "thing of value of the United States" under 18 U.S.C. § 641, even though forfeiture proceedings had not been initiated, because the government had possession and control of the property at the time of the theft.
• United States v. $4
  551 F. Supp. 314· S.D. Fla.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 5×
  The United States brought civil forfeiture actions against $4,255,625.39 in a Capital Bank account and $3,686,639 in seized currency, alleging the funds were proceeds of narcotics transactions or involved in drug money laundering. The court found that Beno Ghitis, operating throu
• United States v. $29
  931 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that despite procedural errors in the forfeiture process that allowed for jurisdiction, the government had probable cause to seize the currency and the claimants failed to prove a legitimate origin for the funds, thus affirming the forfeiture.
• United States v. Four Parcels OF Real Prop. IN Greene & Tuscaloosa Cntys. IN the State OF Ala.
  893 F.2d 1245· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government failed to establish probable cause for forfeiture, and the claimant presented sufficient evidence of legitimate ownership, entitling him to summary judgment.
• United States v. Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Five Hundred & Five Dollars
  655 F. Supp. 1487· S.D. Fla.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant currency and vehicle were subject to civil forfeiture because they were used to facilitate drug trafficking and purchased with drug proceeds, and the claimants failed to establish a defense.
• United States v. Certain Real Prop. Known as Gulfstream W.
  710 F. Supp. 792· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the 'interest' of an innocent owner under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) is limited to amounts allowed by the government's administrative remission practice, which excludes attorney fees, late charges, and penalty interest.
• United States v. Approximately TWO Thousand
  988 F.2d 1281· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that "process has been executed" under Supplemental Rule C(6) requires both the execution of a warrant for arrest in rem upon the property and the giving of adequate notice to potential claimants; the mere personal service of notice on the owner is insufficient if
• United States v. ALL
  983 F.2d 396· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the forfeiture of the real property, finding sufficient probable cause, but reversed and remanded the forfeiture of the bank accounts due to unclear findings and potential lack of opportunity for the government to fully present its case.
• United States v. $84
  981 F.2d 1110· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The abatement doctrine does not apply to civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) because the statute is primarily civil in nature. The court also found it had jurisdiction over the appeal despite a technical defect in the notice of appeal.
• United States v. Doyer
  907 F. Supp. 1519· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-22 ·cited 1×
  Civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is remedial, not punitive, and thus does not trigger Double Jeopardy protections against a subsequent criminal prosecution. Furthermore, jeopardy did not attach to prior civil forfeiture judgments entered by default.
• United States v. $705
  820 F. Supp. 1398· S.D. Fla.· 1993-03-31 ·cited 1×
  The court granted summary judgment for the government, forfeiting the defendant currency, because the claimant failed to establish an innocent owner defense and rebut the government's showing of probable cause for a violation of currency transaction reporting requirements.
• United States v. Levine
  905 F. Supp. 1025· M.D. Fla.· 1995-07-28
  The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds of double jeopardy and the statute of limitations should be denied, as the civil forfeiture was remedial and jeopardy did not attach, and the statute of limitations issue requires jury determination.
• United States v. Abel Parama Borromeo
  995 F.2d 23· 4th Cir.· 1993-05-26
  The court held that while property used as an instrumentality of crime is forfeitable, the government must demonstrate a substantial connection between other property sought as proceeds and the criminal activity.
• United States v. $31
  982 F.2d 851· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-08
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate probable cause to believe the seized currency was substantially connected with drug-related activities, thus summary judgment for the claimant was proper.
• United States v. U.S. Currency
  980 F.2d 1200· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02
  The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc and the petition for rehearing.
• United States v. ONE 1986 Nissan Maxima GL.
  895 F.2d 1062· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-08
  The court held that the government met its burden of proving probable cause that the vehicle was purchased with drug proceeds, and the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the funds came from an independent, non-drug-related source.