1 See 21 U.S.C. § 881(e) (2006), 18 U.S.C. § 981(e)(2) (2006), and 19 U.S.C. § 1616a (2006).
2 See 21 U.S.C. §853(e) (2006).
3 Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202-225 (2000).
4 See U.S. v. James Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (“Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights”).
5 See e.g., Or. Const. art. XV, § 10 (Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000); 2001 Mo. SB 5 (codified in Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 513.605, 513.607, 513.647 and 513.653 (2010); 2010 Minn. Laws 391 (codified in scattered sections of Minn. Stat.).
6 See Marian R. Williams, et al., Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture, Inst. for Justice (2010), available at http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf.
7 See, e.g., United States v. Khan, 497 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (denying attorneys fees under CAFRA for representation of individuals whose property was not properly subject to forfeiture under federal law); Foster v. United States, 522 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that CAFRA re-waiver of sovereign immunity for damage to goods detained by the government applies only to property seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 154 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that sovereign immunity bars monetary rewards for property lost or destroyed by the government being held in anticipation of forfeiture); Diaz v. United States, 517 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2008) (claims for seized currency are similarly jurisdictionally barred by the principle of sovereign immunity).
8 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2.
9 See, e.g., Ginsburg at 801-802 (money judgment requires the defendant to pay the total amount derived from the criminal activity, “regardless of whether the specific dollars received from that activity are still in his possession”); United States v. Baker, 227 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (forfeiture order may include a money judgment for the amount of money involved in the money laundering offense, which acts as a lien against the defendant personally); United States v. Conner, 752 F.2d 566, 576 (11th Cir. 1985) (because criminal forfeiture is in personam, it follows defendant; the money judgment is in the amount that came into his hands illegally; government not required to trace the money to any specific asset); United States v. Amend, 791 F.2d 1120, 1127 (4th Cir. 1986) (same); United States v. Robilotto, 828 F.2d 940, 949 (2d Cir. 1987) (following Conner and Ginsburg, court may enter money judgment for the amount of the illegal proceeds regardless of whether defendant retained the proceeds); United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1084, 1088 (3d Cir. 1996) (government entitled to personal money judgment equal to the amount of money involved in the underlying offense); and United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2000) (Corrado I) (ordering entry of money judgment for the amount derived from a RICO offense).