28 C.F.R. § 9.4

Petitions in judicial forfeiture cases

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notice of seizure. The notice of seizure and intent to forfeit the property shall advise any persons who may have a present ownership interest in the property to submit their petitions for remission or mitigation within 30 days of the date they receive the notice in order to facilitate processing. Petitions shall be considered any time after notice until such time as the forfeited property is placed in official use, sold, or otherwise disposed of according to law, except in cases involving petitions to restore property. A notice of seizure shall include the title of the ruling official and the mailing and street address of the official to whom petitions should be sent, the name of the agency seizing the property, an asset identifier number, and the district court docket number.

(b) Persons who may file. A petition for remission or mitigation must be filed by a petitioner as defined in § 9.2 or as prescribed in § 9.9(g) and (h).

(c) Contents of petition. (1) All petitions must include the following information in clear and concise terms:

(i) The name, address, and social security or other taxpayer identification number of the person claiming an interest in the seized property who is seeking remission or mitigation;

(ii) The name of the seizing agency, the asset identifier number, and the date and place of seizure;

(iii) The district court docket number;

(iv) A complete description of the property, including the address or legal description of real property, and make, model, and serial numbers of personal property, if any; and

(v) A description of the petitioner's interest in the property as owner, lienholder, or otherwise, supported by original or certified bills of sale, contracts, mortgages, deeds, or other documentary evidence.

(2) Any factual recitation or documentation of any type in a petition must be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury that meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1746.

(d) Releases. In addition to the content of the petition for remission or mitigation set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, the petitioner, upon request, also shall furnish the agency with an instrument executed by the titled or registered owner and any other known claimant of an interest in the property releasing the interest in such property.

(e) Filing petition with Department of Justice. A petition for remission or mitigation of a judicial forfeiture shall be addressed to the Attorney General; shall be sworn to by the petitioner or by the petitioner's attorney upon information and belief, supported by the client's sworn notice of representation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, as set forth in § 9.9(g); and shall be submitted to the U.S. Attorney for the district in which the judicial forfeiture proceedings are brought.

(f) Agency investigation and recommendation; U.S. Attorney's recommendation. Upon receipt of a petition, the U.S. Attorney shall direct the seizing agency to investigate the merits of the petition based on the information provided by the petitioner and the totality of the agency's investigation of the underlying basis for forfeiture. The agency shall submit to the U.S. Attorney a report of its investigation and its recommendation on whether the petition should be granted or denied. Upon receipt of the agency's report and recommendation, the U.S. Attorney shall forward to the Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, the petition, the seizing agency's report and recommendation, and the U.S. Attorney's recommendation on whether the petition should be granted or denied.

(g) Ruling. The Chief shall rule on the petition. No hearing shall be held. The Chief shall not rule on any petition for remission if such remission was previously denied by the agency pursuant to § 9.3.

(h) Petitions under Internal Revenue Service liquor laws. The Chief shall accept and consider petitions submitted in judicial forfeiture proceedings under the Internal Revenue Service liquor laws only prior to the time a decree of forfeiture is entered. Thereafter, the district court has exclusive jurisdiction.

(i) Petitions granted. If the Chief grants a remission or mitigates the forfeiture, the Chief shall mail a copy of the decision to the petitioner (or, if represented by an attorney, to the petitioner's attorney) and shall mail or transmit electronically a copy of the decision to the appropriate U.S. Attorney, the USMS or other property custodian, and the seizing agency. The written decision shall include the terms and conditions, if any, upon which the remission or mitigation is granted and the procedures the petitioner must follow to obtain release of the property or the monetary interest therein. The Chief shall advise the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney to consult with the U.S. Attorney as to such terms and conditions. The U.S. Attorney shall confer with the seizing agency regarding the release and shall coordinate disposition of the property with that office and the USMS or other property custodian.

(j) Petitions denied. If the Chief denies a petition, a copy of that decision shall be mailed to the petitioner (or, if represented by an attorney, to the petitioner's attorney of record) and mailed or transmitted electronically to the appropriate U.S. Attorney, the USMS or other property custodian, and to the seizing agency. The decision shall specify the reason that the petition was denied. The decision shall advise the petitioner that a request for reconsideration of the denial of the petition may be submitted to the Chief at the address provided in the decision, in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section.

(k) Request for reconsideration. (1) A request for reconsideration of the denial shall be considered if:

(i) It is postmarked or received by the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section at the address contained in the decision denying the petition within 10 days from the receipt of the notice of denial of the petition by the petitioner;

(ii) A copy of the request is also received by the appropriate U.S. Attorney within 10 days of the receipt of the denial by the petitioner; and

(iii) The request is based on information or evidence not previously considered that is material to the basis for the denial or presents a basis clearly demonstrating that the denial was erroneous.

(2) In no event shall a request for reconsideration be decided by the ruling official who ruled on the original petition.

(3) Only one request for reconsideration of a denial of a petition shall be considered.

(4) Upon receipt of the request for reconsideration of the denial of a petition, disposition of the property will be delayed pending notice of the decision at the request of the Chief. If the request for reconsideration is not received within the prescribed period, the USMS or other property custodian may dispose of the property.

(l) Restoration of proceeds from sale. (1) A petition for restoration of the proceeds from the sale of forfeited property, or for the appraised value of forfeited property when the forfeited property has been retained by or delivered to a government agency for official use, may be submitted by an owner or lienholder in cases in which the petitioner:

(i) Did not know of the seizure prior to the entry of a final order of forfeiture; and

(ii) Could not reasonably have known of the seizure prior to the entry of a final order of forfeiture.

(2) Such a petition must be submitted pursuant to paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section within 90 days of the date the property was sold or otherwise disposed of.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Starwood Management, LLC by and Through Norma Gonzalez v. Don Swaim and Rose Walker, L.L.P.
Starwood Management, LLC by and Through Norma Gonzalez v. Don Swaim and Rose Walker, L.L.P. (2017) tex “28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (a). Swaim did not file such a notice on behalf of Starwood.”
Torres v. United States (1988) cc · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (e). It is generally recognized that the Attorney General and his representatives have “virtually un-reviewable discretion to ameliorate the harshness of forfeiture statutes [such as 19 U.”
Bernard Shaney Willis v. United States (1986) ca7 “Among those regulations were 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (a), (b), and (c), setting forth the DEA’s procedures for reviewing petitions for remission.”
Perry v. United States (1993) uscfc “Following this denial, plaintiff requested on September 29, 1988, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (i), that the FBI reconsider its denial of her petition for remission or mitigation.”
Infante v. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996) nyed · cites it 3× “81 ; 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (e). The determining official does not consider whether the evidence is sufficient to support the forfeiture, but presumes a valid forfeiture.”
Noel v. United States (1989) cc “79 , 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (a). The election to demand judicial proceedings or to rely upon administrative proceedings rests solely with the claimant.”
United States v. Approximately $133,803.53 in U.S. Currency Seized From Washington Mutual Bank, N.A., Account 4420842802 (2010) caed “28 C.F.R. 9.4. These regulations also set forth the criteria considered in the exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion, 28 C.”
United States v. Marolf (1997) cacd “28 C.F.R. § 9.4 ; 21 C.F.R. § 1316.79 . 12 .”
Willis v. United States (1985) ilnd “” In Count III, plaintiff claims and seeks a declaratory judgment to the effect that 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 , the regulation that establishes procedures for claimants to petition for remission or mitigation but provides that a hearing is not available, fails to conform to the seizure…”
United States v. Dharia (2018) nyed “28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (c)(1). After a remission application is received, the agency that seized property from the defendant must investigate the petition and submit a report to the United States Attorney.”
United States v. Guidant LLC (2010) mnd “See 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (describing what information an individual should submit in support of a petition for remission, where the information should be submitted, and who reviews the petition).”
Burke v. United States Department of Justice (1997) almd · cites it 8× “However, Snider wrote Burke on October 8, 1996, and explained that Burke was entitled to only one reconsideration of the DEA’s denial of Burke’s Lienholder Petition in accordance with the provisions of 28 C.F.R. § 9.4 (i). In this same letter, Snider wrote that the DEA had…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.