• By
  • Nathan Koppel

The statistics are jarring.




Forfeiture laws are designed to take ill-gotten gains away from criminals and help the government dismantle criminal enterprises.

But of concern to some is the fact that the federal government has the power in certain instances to seize assets without filing criminal charges against the owner of the assets. While people have the power to challenge asset forfeitures in court, they have to be able to afford a lawyer to do so.

Last year, claimants challenged more than 1,800 civil-forfeiture actions in federal court, according to Justice Department figures, WSJ reports.

But Justice Department officials told WSJ that they rarely lose such cases, a fact they cite as evidence that the system is working properly. Forfeiture attorneys, meanwhile, counter that the government often settles cases, returning at least part of the seized assets, if it thinks it might lose.

Another red flag to critics is the fact that the federal government can share seized assets with cooperating state and local law enforcement agencies, which can then use seized funds at their discretion, WSJ reports, noting that the federal government paid out more than $500 million last year to local law enforcement agencies, a figure that had risen about 75% from a decade ago.

In times of fiscal austerity, the police have an incentive to seize first and ask questions later, critics contend. (Here’s an earlier blog post about a Texas district attorney who improperly used seized assets to boost the pay of his employees.)

Justice Department officials say that seized assets are monitored closely to ensure that they are being used properly.