Federal Criminal Forfeiture Defense Saves Client $550,000
A federal criminal case can threaten much more than a defendant’s liberty. The government may also attempt to seize money, property, and other assets through criminal forfeiture.
In one federal case in Chicago, the government sought a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture against my client involving approximately $550,000 in property and assets.
I challenged the government’s forfeiture request.
After considering the defense arguments, the court dismissed the government’s Petition for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.
Result: approximately $550,000 in assets saved for the client.
Federal Criminal Forfeiture Can Put Significant Assets at Risk
Federal prosecutors frequently pursue forfeiture in conjunction with a criminal prosecution.
Depending upon the offense and applicable forfeiture statute, the government may seek property allegedly constituting proceeds of criminal activity, property allegedly involved in an offense, or other property subject to forfeiture under federal law.
The financial consequences can be enormous.
That makes it important to examine not simply whether the government has obtained a conviction, but whether it can satisfy the separate legal requirements necessary to forfeit the specific property it seeks to forfeit.
The Government Also Sought Substitute Assets
The government’s forfeiture petition in this case sought proceeds and specific property, including substitute assets.
Substitute asset forfeiture can become particularly significant when the government contends that directly forfeitable property is no longer available.
The government cannot simply identify a defendant’s property and take it. Federal forfeiture is governed by statutes and procedural rules that establish what property may be forfeited and the circumstances under which substitute property may be reached.
Those requirements should be carefully examined and challenged when the government cannot establish its entitlement to the property.
Challenging the Government’s Forfeiture Request
I opposed the government’s Petition for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and presented the defense position to the court.
The judge considered the arguments and dismissed the government’s petition.
The ruling prevented the government from enforcing the forfeiture and resulted in approximately $550,000 in savings for the client.
It was a significant victory because criminal forfeiture can sometimes receive less attention than the underlying criminal charges even though the financial consequences to a defendant and family can be substantial.
Federal Criminal Defense Requires Fighting the Financial Case Too
A federal criminal defense should address every significant consequence of the prosecution.
That may include challenging the government’s evidence, filing motions to suppress, preparing for trial, addressing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and contesting the government’s attempt to seize a defendant’s property.
When the government seeks criminal forfeiture, the forfeiture allegations deserve the same careful examination as the criminal charges themselves.
The government should be required to establish that the law actually permits it to take the property it seeks.
In this case, the defense challenged the government’s forfeiture request.
The petition was dismissed, and approximately $550,000 was saved for the client.
Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Michael J. Petro
Attorney Michael J. Petro represents individuals facing serious federal criminal investigations and prosecutions, including cases involving criminal forfeiture and substantial financial exposure.
Every case is different, and past results cannot guarantee a particular outcome. But when the federal government seeks to seize property as part of a criminal prosecution, the forfeiture case should be carefully examined and challenged where the law and facts provide a basis to do so.
If you are facing a federal criminal prosecution involving forfeiture of money, property, or other assets, call Michael J. Petro to discuss your defense.