Forfeiture - Innocent Owner Defense

United States v. Salti, 579 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2009)

The claimant offered sufficient information to support her claim to the forfeited bank account in Switzerland. In claiming a marital interest in the property, the law of Switzerland governs the decision, since the claimant lived in Switzerland and that is the where the property rights were established.

United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2005)

In this criminal forfeiture action, the jury reached a special verdict that required the defendant to forfeit to the government his interest in certain properties. The defendant’s daughter claimed that the properties were hers and she was an innocent owner. The Ninth Circuit held that the daughter did, in fact, have legal title, despite the fact that she did not pay for the property when it was given to her by her grandmother. In answering this question, the focus is on state law. The fact that the defendant occasionally paid the taxes on the property and used it for illegal purposes did not operate to vest title in him. Therefore, the property was not subject to in personam forfeiture.

United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2003)

In this criminal forfeiture case, the claimant was the wife of the criminal defendant, whose assets were ordered forfeited. The wife claimed that she was title owner of the house, though the mortgage payments and improvements were made with the husband’s illegal income. The Eighth Circuit held that this does not present a case of a straw owner. The wife lived on the property and exercised dominion and control over the property, so she was not a straw owner. Because criminal forfeiture is in personam, the government may not seize the wife’s interest in the property. In order to determine how much of the property is “hers” the district court should consider the state’s divorce law.

United States v. Leak, 123 F.3d 787 (4th Cir. 1997)

The claimants made dozens of deposits into their bank account in increments less than $10,000. The money in the bank was later used to pay off the mortgage and to finance an addition for their house. The trial court correctly concluded that there was probable cause to support the forfeiture of the house. However, the claimants denied knowing about the currency transaction reporting requirements and this created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were innocent owners of the property. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the government.