Illinois Compiled Statutes
725 ILCS 150/7 (2026)
Presumptions and inferences
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 150/7)
(from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1677)
Sec. 7. Presumptions and inferences. (1) The following situation shall give rise to a
presumption that the property described therein was furnished or intended
to be furnished in exchange for a substance in violation of the Illinois
Controlled Substances Act, the Cannabis Control Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, or is the proceeds
of such an exchange, and therefore forfeitable under this Act, such
presumptions being rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence:
All moneys, coin, or currency found in close proximity to
any substances manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or possessed in violation of the Illinois
Controlled Substances Act, the Cannabis Control Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, to forfeitable drug manufacturing or distributing
paraphernalia, or to forfeitable records of the importation, manufacture or
distribution of substances.
(2) In the following situation, the trier of fact may infer that the property described therein was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a substance in violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, the Cannabis Control Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, or is the proceeds of such an exchange, and therefore forfeitable under this Act: All property acquired or caused to be acquired by a person either
between the dates of occurrence of two or more acts in felony violation of
the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, the Cannabis Control Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act,
or an act committed in another state, territory or
country which would be punishable as a felony under the Illinois
Controlled Substances Act, the Cannabis Control Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, committed by that
person within 5 years of each other, or all property acquired by such
person within a reasonable amount of time after the commission of such acts if:
(a) at least one of the above acts was committed | after the effective date of this Act; and |
(b) both of the acts are or were punishable as a | Class X, Class 1, or Class 2 felony; and |
(c) there was no likely source for such property | other than a violation of the above Acts. |
(3) Presumptions and permissive inferences set forth in this Section shall apply to all portions of all phases of all forfeiture proceedings under this Act. (Source: P.A. 100-512, eff. 7-1-18; 100-699, eff. 8-3-18.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: People v. $5,970 United States Currency, 664 N.E.2d 1115 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
People v. $5,970 United States Currency, 664 N.E.2d 1115 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “725 ILCS 150/7 (West 1992). The State has the initial burden of showing probable cause for the forfeiture of the property.”
People v. A Parcel of Prop. Commonly Known as 1945 North 31st Street, Decatur, Macon Cnty., Illinois, 841 N.E.2d 928 (Ill. 2005). “The court, in finding that the State established a prima facie case, did not rely on any of the presumptions allowed under section 7 of the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/7 (West 2002)). 1 The court found that the homestead exemption does not apply to a forfeiture case (see 735…”
People ex rel. Alvarez v. $59,914 United States Currency, 2022 IL 126927 (Ill. 2022). “1 ¶7 On November 12, 2015, the State filed an in rem forfeiture complaint against the $223,743 pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/12 (West 2014)), and section 7(1) of the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 2014)), which presumes money found in “close…”
People v. P.S., 661 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 1996). “) Because Turner contested the forfeiture, the State then instituted a judicial in rem forfeiture suit against the cash under the Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/505(a)(5) (West 1992)) and the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 1992)). The forfeiture complaint…”
People v. $111,900 United States Currency, 851 N.E.2d 813 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “” 725 ILCS 150/7 (West 2004). On June 6, Ganious filed a response to the complaint, stating that he had found the money on February 17.”
People v. One 2000 Ford F-350 Pickup Truck, 788 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 2000); People v. $5,970 United States Currency, 279 Ill.”
People v. $207,766 United States Currency, 727 N.E.2d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “This includes proceeds from drug transactions (725 ILCS 150/7 (West 1996)), except for those proceeds “which constitute[ ] reasonable bona fide attorney’s fees paid to an attorney for services rendered or to be rendered in the forfeiture proceeding or criminal proceeding…”
In Re Ps, 661 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 1996). “) Because Turner contested the forfeiture, the State then instituted a judicial in rem forfeiture suit against the cash under the Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/505(a)(5) (West 1992)) and the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 1992)). The forfeiture complaint…”
People v. $1,850.00 United States Currency, 2021 IL App (3d) 190679-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 2018). ¶ 15 A reviewing court will not disturb that determination of the trial court with respect to probable cause in the forfeiture context unless that determination is contrary to the manifest 4 weight of the evidence.”
People v. $940 United States Currency, 2019 IL App (3d) 180102 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “¶ 18 In the instant case, in order to show that such an exchange occurred or was intended to occur, the State relies on the following presumption described in section 7 of the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (725 ILCS 150/7 (West 2016)): -5- “The following situations shall…”
People ex rel. Foxx v. $498 United States Currency, 2020 IL App (1st) 190144-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “¶4 The complaint further alleged that the money, totaling $13,628, was subject to forfeiture under section 7 of the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (725 ILCS 150/7 (West 2016)) because the money was recovered in close proximity to forfeitable substances, forfeitable drug…”
People v. $3,230.00 United States Currency, 2021 IL App (3d) 200434-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 2020). The trial court found that the presumption did not apply because there was no showing of close proximity when the money was found on the claimant’s person, the illegal drugs were found in the backseat of the vehicle that the claimant was driving,…”
— 725 ILCS 150/7(1) — 9 cases
People v. $5,970 United States Currency, 664 N.E.2d 1115 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “725 ILCS 150/7 (West 1992). The State has the initial burden of showing probable cause for the forfeiture of the property.”
People ex rel. Alvarez v. $59,914 United States Currency, 2022 IL 126927 (Ill. 2022). “1 ¶7 On November 12, 2015, the State filed an in rem forfeiture complaint against the $223,743 pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/12 (West 2014)), and section 7(1) of the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 2014)), which presumes money found in “close…”
People v. P.S., 661 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 1996). “) Because Turner contested the forfeiture, the State then instituted a judicial in rem forfeiture suit against the cash under the Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/505(a)(5) (West 1992)) and the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 1992)). The forfeiture complaint…”
People v. One 2000 Ford F-350 Pickup Truck, 788 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 2000); People v. $5,970 United States Currency, 279 Ill.”
In Re Ps, 661 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 1996). “) Because Turner contested the forfeiture, the State then instituted a judicial in rem forfeiture suit against the cash under the Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/505(a)(5) (West 1992)) and the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 1992)). The forfeiture complaint…”
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.
|