ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 150
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 150/12 (2026)

Nothing in this Act shall apply to property which constitutes reasonable bona fide attorney's fees paid to an attorney for services rendered or to be rendered in the forfeiture proceeding or criminal proceeding relating directly thereto where such property was paid before its seizure, before the issuance of any seizure warrant or court order prohibiting transfer of the property and where the attorney, at the time he or she received the property did not know that it was property subject to forfeiture under this Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 150/12) (from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1682)
    Sec. 12. Nothing in this Act shall apply to property which constitutes reasonable bona fide attorney's fees paid to an attorney for services rendered or to be rendered in the forfeiture proceeding or criminal proceeding relating directly thereto where such property was paid before its seizure, before the issuance of any seizure warrant or court order prohibiting transfer of the property and where the attorney, at the time he or she received the property did not know that it was property subject to forfeiture under this Act.
(Source: P.A. 86-1382.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: People v. $207,766 United States Currency, 727 N.E.2d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. $207,766 United States Currency, 727 N.E.2d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “The State counters that, on the facts of this case, section 12 of the Act (725 ILCS 150/12 (West 1996)) controls. According to the State, section 12 of the Act precludes the recovery of attorney fees under any theory advanced by Morelli, irrespective of the Moya-Gomez line.”
People v. $13,740 in United States Currency, 2022 IL App (2d) 200573-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “3d 454, 455 (2000), as well as an application of section 12 of the Act (725 ILCS 150/12 (West 2018)) (status of property constituting attorney’s fees) preclude Rouleau “from recovering fees pursuant to the contingent fee agreement.”
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.