Filed January 6, 2014
Judge Wilson’s careful analysis of CAFRA is particularly persuasive. In United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, Judge Wilson closely examined CAFRA and held that the probable cause requirement codified in 19 U.S.C. § 1615 survived CAFRA—a conclusion that was confirmed by the Ninth Circuit, although the circuit reversed the district court’s determination that the government had sufficient probable cause. 527 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1116- 19 (C.D. Cal. 2007) rev’d and remanded, 590 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterating that probable cause survived CAFRA, but reversing the district court’s ruling that the government Case 1:11-cv-01874-RC Document 36 Filed 01/06/14 Page 20 of 28 16 had met its probable cause burden).
Filed August 9, 2013
Fourth, Claimants’ arguments have no foundation in the statutory text. Title 19 requires only that “probable cause shall be first shown for the institution of such suit or action . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1615. Nothing in that language even hints that Congress intended to require the Government to plead all of its actionable claims in its initial pleadings, let alone prohibit courts from granting the Government leave to amend its pleadings, as the Court permitted the Government to do here.2 ECF No. 47.
Filed August 22, 2016
ACCG 1 Appeal, 698 F.3d at 184. But the Fourth Circuit noted that the Guild’s argument about coin circulation “is not the whole story,” and still echoed the need for the Guild to “press a particularized challenge to 4 The government has argued that the evidentiary standards of 19 U.S.C. § 1615, which would allow the use of any admissible evidence or testimony to contest forfeiture, do not apply in this case because 19 U.S.C. §§ 2602, 2604, and 2606 specify the evidence permitted in a forfeiture case under the CPIA. See, e.g., ECF No. 55 at 5--7.
Filed March 26, 2012
See United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 590 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The probable cause requirement is statutory. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1615, . . . the government must show that probable cause exists to institute its action. We recently held that this requirement survived the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.”)