2250

Disposition of Forfeited Property Pursuant to 21 U.S.C 881(e), 21 U.S.C. 853(h), and 18 U.S.C. 1963(f) and (g).

BACKGROUND AND LEGAL ANALYSIS: The starting point for understanding the difference between a forfeiture sale and a judicial sale is the definition of the term "forfeiture." "Forfeiture has been historically defined as 'the divestiture without compensation of property used in a manner contrary to the laws of the sovereign.'" Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Asset Forfeiture Manual, Vol. I., Law and Practice, Introduction, section 1, p.1 (June 1993), quoting from United States v. Eight (8) Rhodesian Stone Statues, 449 F. Supp. 193, 195 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 1978); cf. D. Smith, Prosecution and Defense of Forfeiture Cases ¶ 2.01, at 2-1 ("As used in this treatise, a forfeiture is the taking by the government of property that is illegally used or acquired, without compensating the owner."). Forfeiture, therefore, divests the owner of title and vests the title in the government. The forfeiture process is the extinguishment of the interest of the former owner, because of the criminal activity, and the vesting of all the right, title and interest in the property in the United States. See United States v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements, Known as 92 Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey, et al., 507 U.S. 111, 128-130, 113 S. Ct. 1126, 1137, (1993); United States v. Grundy, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 337, 350-351 (1806); cf. Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 89-92, 113 S. Ct. 554, 561-62 (1992); United States v. Real Property Located at 185 Hargraves Drive (In Re Newport Saving and Loan Association), 928 F.2d 472, 478 (1st Cir. 1991); 21 U.S.C. § 881(h); 21 U.S.C. § 853(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1963(c). In United States v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements, Known as 92 Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey, the Supreme Court clarified the time when the forfeiture action vests title in the government: The common-law rule had always allowed owners to invoke defenses made available to them before the Government's title vested, and after title did vest, the common-law rule had always related the title back to the date of the commission of the act that made the specific property forfeitable. Our decision denies the Government no benefits of the relation back doctrine. The Government cannot profit from the common-law doctrine of relation back until it has obtained a judgment of forfeiture. Buena Vista, 113 S. Ct. 1126, 1137 (1993); cf. Motlow v. State ex rel. Koeln, 295 U.S. 97, 99 (1935) ("While, under the statute in question, a judgment of forfeiture relates back to the date of the offense as proved, that result follows only from an effective judgment of condemnation."); United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1890); Henderson's Distilled Spirits, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 44, 56, 20 L.Ed. 815 (1871); Confiscation Cases, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 454, 460, 19 L.Ed. 196 (1869); United States v. Grundy, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 337, 350-351 (1806). In the forfeiture process, the government does not own the property until a final order of forfeiture. However, once there is a final forfeiture judgment, the government is vested with title by operation of law: ...If the Government wins a judgment of forfeiture under the common-law rule the vesting of its title in the property relates back to the moment when the property became forfeitable. Until the Government does win such a judgment, however, someone else owns the property. Buena Vista, 113 S. Ct. 1126, 1136., Thus, under the forfeiture process, the court's only involvement is to confirm the government's ownership interest in the property and to hear claims by innocent owners to the property in the case. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l); 21 U.S.C. § 853(n); cf. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4); (a)(6); (a)(7). [cited in USAM 9-115.310]