Illinois Compiled Statutes
725 ILCS 150/2 (2026)
Legislative Declaration
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 150/2)
(from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1672)
Sec. 2. Legislative Declaration. The General Assembly finds that the
civil forfeiture of property which is used or intended to be used in, is
attributable to or facilitates the manufacture, sale, transportation,
distribution, possession or use of substances in certain violations of the
Illinois Controlled Substances Act, the Cannabis Control Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act
will have a significant beneficial effect in deterring the rising
incidence of the abuse and trafficking of such substances within this
State. While forfeiture may secure for State and local units of government
some resources for deterring drug abuse and drug trafficking, forfeiture is
not intended to be an alternative means of funding the administration of
criminal justice. The General Assembly further finds that the federal
narcotics civil forfeiture statute upon which this Act is based has been
very successful in deterring the use and distribution of controlled
substances within this State and throughout the country. It is therefore
the intent of the General Assembly that the forfeiture provisions of this
Act be construed in light of the federal forfeiture provisions contained in
21 U.S.C. 881 as interpreted by the federal courts, except to the extent
that the provisions of this Act expressly differ therefrom.
(Source: P.A. 94-556, eff. 9-11-05.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: People Ex Rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency, 766 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. 2002).
People Ex Rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency, 766 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. 2002). “See 725 ILCS 150/2 (West 2000). Forfeiture under the Act "encourages owners `to take care in managing *1089 their property and ensures that they will not permit that property to be used for illegal purposes.”
People v. $1,124,905 U.S. Currency, 685 N.E.2d 1370 (Ill. 1997). “725 ILCS 150/2 (West 1994). Therefore, we look to the federal courts for guidance regarding the appropriate standard for probable cause in the context of civil forfeiture.”
People v. A Parcel of Prop. Commonly Known as 1945 North 31st Street, Decatur, Macon Cnty., Illinois, 841 N.E.2d 928 (Ill. 2005). “725 ILCS 150/2 (West 2002). We note that claimants began oral argument in this cause by stating that forfeitures are not favored in the law and “therefore, we must construe the forfeiture statute strictly.”
People v. $1,124,905.00 United States Currency, 647 N.E.2d 1028 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “” 725 ILCS 150/2 (West 1992). Under the Forfeiture Act, when the State’s Attorney seizes "non-real property that exceeds $20,000 in value” believed to be subject to forfeiture, "the State’s Attorney shall institute judicial forfeiture proceedings by filing a verified complaint…”
People v. One Black 2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, 2025 IL App (2d) 240314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “725 ILCS 150/2 (West 2020). The General Assembly -5- 2025 IL App (2d) 240314 enacted the Forfeiture Act to deter violations of the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/1 et seq.”
People v. $280,020 United States Currency, 866 N.E.2d 1232 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “725 ILCS 150/2 (West 2000); see People v.”
People v. 1995 Ford Van, 809 N.E.2d 811 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “The claimant also argues that in contrast to the Act, which is to be interpreted in light of federal law (see 725 ILCS 150/2 (West 2000)), section 36 — 1 is controlled by state law.”
People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 725 ILCS 150/2 (West 2006). ¶ 52 The operative phrase here is “except to the extent that the provisions of this Act expressly differ therefrom.”
People Ex Rel. Neal v. Ryan, 672 N.E.2d 47 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “725 ILCS 150/2 (West 1994); see also 725 ILCS 150/9(B), (G) (West 1994).”
People v. $280,020 in United States Currency, 2013 IL App (1st) 111820 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “725 ILCS 150/2 (West 2000); People ex rel.”
People v. Towns, 646 N.E.2d 1366 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “” 725 ILCS 150/2 (West 1992). Like 21 U.S.C.”
People v. Smith, 656 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “725 ILCS 150/2 (West 1994). The effect of the court’s finding that the State’s Attorney’s administrative forfeiture proceeding was void ab initia was to render the proceeding null and ineffective as to defendant because the State’s Attorney failed to provide him the notice that…”
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.
|