ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 570
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 570/411.1 (2026)

(a) Whenever any person pleads guilty to, is found guilty of or is placed on supervision for an offense under this Article, a fine may be levied in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 570/411.1) (from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1411.1)
    Sec. 411.1. (a) Whenever any person pleads guilty to, is found guilty of or is placed on supervision for an offense under this Article, a fine may be levied in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court.
    (b) In determining whether to impose a fine under this Section and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of any fine so imposed, the court shall:
        (1) consider the defendant's income, regardless of
    
source, the defendant's earning capacity and the defendant's financial resources, as well as the nature of the burden the fine will impose on the defendant and any person legally or financially dependent upon the defendant;
        (2) consider the proof received at trial, or as a
    
result of a plea of guilty, concerning the full street value of the controlled substances seized and any profits or other proceeds derived by the defendant from the violation of this Act;
        (3) take into account any other pertinent equitable
    
considerations; and
        (4) give primary consideration to the need to deprive
    
the defendant of illegally obtained profits or other proceeds from the offense.
    For the purpose of paragraph (2) of this subsection, "street value" shall be determined by the court on the basis of testimony of law enforcement personnel and the defendant as to the amount seized and such testimony as may be required by the court as to the current street value of the controlled substances.
    (c) As a condition of a fine, the court may require that payment be made in specified installments or within a specified period of time, but such period shall not be greater than the maximum applicable term of probation or imprisonment, whichever is greater. Unless otherwise specified, payment of a fine shall be due immediately.
    (d) If a fine for a violation of this Act is imposed on an organization, it is the duty of each individual authorized to make disbursements of the assets of the organization to pay the fine from assets of the organization.
    (e) (1) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay a fine, and who has paid part but not all of such fine, may petition the court for an extension of the time for payment or modification of the method of payment.
    (2) The court may grant a petition made pursuant to this subsection if it finds that:
        (i) the circumstances that warranted payment by the
    
time or method specified no longer exist; or
        (ii) it is otherwise unjust to require payment of the
    
fine by the time or method specified.
(Source: P.A. 91-357, eff. 7-29-99.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1994–2009 · leading case: People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “It is in a section separate from the fines provision for convictions under the Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.1 (West 2002)). Section 411.”
People v. Coleman, 909 N.E.2d 952 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “1 of the Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.1 (West 2006)), section 401(b) of the Controlled Substances Act gives the trial court discretion to impose a fine (720 ILCS 570/401(b) (West 2006) (“may *** be fined”)).”
People v. Fort, 869 N.E.2d 950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “It is in a section separate from the fines provision for convictions under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.1 (West 2002)). Section 411.”
People v. Hancock, 704 N.E.2d 431 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “2 (West 1996)), and $3,700 street-value fine (720 ILCS 570/411.1 (West 1996)). On appeal, the issues are whether (1) the “no-knock” search warrant should have been quashed and the evidence obtained as a result of the search suppressed for one or more of the following reasons:…”
People ex rel. Waller v. 1992 Oldsmobile Station Wagon, 638 N.E.2d 373 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “(See 720 ILCS 570/411.1 (b)(1) (West 1992).) Since the Supreme Court has determined that a civil forfeiture may be the functional equivalent of a fine, such considerations should inform that determination as well.”
People v. Fort (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “It is in a section separate from the fines provision for convictions under the Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.1 (West 2002)). Section 411.”
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.