ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 150
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 150/8 (2026)

Exemptions from forfeiture

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 150/8) (from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1678)
    Sec. 8. Exemptions from forfeiture.
    (a) No vessel or watercraft, vehicle, or aircraft used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier may be forfeited under this Act unless the State proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:
        (1) in the case of a railway car or engine, the
    
owner, or
        (2) in the case of any other such vessel or
    
watercraft, vehicle or aircraft, the owner or the master of such vessel or watercraft or the owner or conductor, driver, pilot, or other person in charge of that vehicle or aircraft was at the time of the alleged illegal act a consenting party or privy to that knowledge.
    (b) No vessel or watercraft, vehicle, or aircraft shall be forfeited under this Act by reason of any act or omission committed or omitted by any person other than such owner while a vessel or watercraft, vehicle, or aircraft was unlawfully in the possession of a person who acquired possession in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state.
(Source: P.A. 100-512, eff. 7-1-18; 100-699, eff. 8-3-18.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: People v. A Parcel of Prop. Commonly Known as 1945 North 31st Street, Decatur, Macon Cnty., Illinois, 841 N.E.2d 928 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. A Parcel of Prop. Commonly Known as 1945 North 31st Street, Decatur, Macon Cnty., Illinois, 841 N.E.2d 928 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 3× “725 ILCS 150/8 (West 2002). “If the State does show existence of probable cause and the claimant does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has an interest that is exempt under Section 8 of this Act, the court shall order all property forfeited to…”
People v. $1,124,905 U.S. Currency, 685 N.E.2d 1370 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 4× “725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1994). During the probable cause portion of the proceeding, "the court must receive and consider, among other things, all relevant hearsay evidence and information.”
People v. $8,450 United States Currency, 659 N.E.2d 103 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “) The Forfeiture Act provides a list of exemptions from forfeiture (see 725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1994)), but does not refer to the exemptions provided in section 12 — 1001 of the Code.”
People v. One 2014 GMC Sierra, 2018 IL App (3d) 170029 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 3× “ship aspect of the exemption, the State maintains that the evidence presented at the forfeiture hearing in this case rebuts Sheland's claim that he was the owner of the vehicle since the evidence showed that Folder had purchased the vehicle, that Folder kept the vehicle at his…”
People v. 1991 Dodge Ram Charger, 620 N.E.2d 448 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 4× “1678 (now 725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1992)).) The State, therefore, need not prove that the exemptions do not apply in order to establish that it is entitled to the forfeiture of the property.”
People v. Towns, 646 N.E.2d 1366 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “1994); 725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1992).) The innocent owner defense operates to ensure that owners of property who lacked knowledge of the drug activity are not punished by forfeiture.”
People v. $5,608 United States Currency, 835 N.E.2d 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “See 725 ILCS 150/8(A)(i) (West 2002). A supplemental disclosure, filed by Brown’s attorney on September 4, 2003, showed checks that Denise had made out to various casinos and gambling vouchers from the casinos in Brown’s name.”
People v. $1,124,905.00 United States Currency, 647 N.E.2d 1028 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “) If the State establishes probable cause, the burden then shifts to the owner or interest holder to show, by a preponderance of evidence, the exemption for forfeiture described in section 8 of the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1992)). (725 ILCS 150/9(G) (West 1992).”
People Ex Rel. Birkett v. 1998 Chevrolet Corvette, 772 N.E.2d 331 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “725 ILCS 150/8(A)(i), (C), (D) (West 2000).”
People v. $174,980 United States Currency, 2013 IL App (1st) 122480 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “However, “[i]f the State does show existence of probable cause and the claimant does not establish by a preponderance of evidence that the claimant has an interest that is exempt under Section 8 of this Act, the court shall order all property forfeited to the State.”
People v. 1515 Coolidge Ave., Aurora, Ill., 721 N.E.2d 205 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 725 ILCS 150/8(D) (West 1998). The State’s affidavits established that the claimant held the property for the benefit of Derrick, who purchased it with proceeds from illegal drug transactions.”
People v. P.S., 661 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 1996). “1994); 725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1992).) The presence of the innocent-owner defense demonstrates the Forfeiture Act’s focus on the culpability of the owner and further supports our finding that the forfeiture at issue constitutes punishment.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 150/8(A)(i) — 4 cases
People v. $5,608 United States Currency, 835 N.E.2d 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “See 725 ILCS 150/8(A)(i) (West 2002). A supplemental disclosure, filed by Brown’s attorney on September 4, 2003, showed checks that Denise had made out to various casinos and gambling vouchers from the casinos in Brown’s name.”
People Ex Rel. Birkett v. 1998 Chevrolet Corvette, 772 N.E.2d 331 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “725 ILCS 150/8(A)(i), (C), (D) (West 2000).”
People v. 1991 Dodge Ram Charger, 620 N.E.2d 448 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). “1678 (now 725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1992)).) The State, therefore, need not prove that the exemptions do not apply in order to establish that it is entitled to the forfeiture of the property.”
People v. 1996 GMC Savana Van, 2019 IL App (1st) 131658-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
— 725 ILCS 150/8(A)(ii) — 1 case
People v. 1996 GMC Savana Van, 2019 IL App (1st) 131658-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
— 725 ILCS 150/8(C) — 1 case
People v. 1991 Dodge Ram Charger, 620 N.E.2d 448 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). “1678 (now 725 ILCS 150/8 (West 1992)).) The State, therefore, need not prove that the exemptions do not apply in order to establish that it is entitled to the forfeiture of the property.”
— 725 ILCS 150/8(D) — 1 case
People v. 1515 Coolidge Ave., Aurora, Ill., 721 N.E.2d 205 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 725 ILCS 150/8(D) (West 1998). The State’s affidavits established that the claimant held the property for the benefit of Derrick, who purchased it with proceeds from illegal drug transactions.”
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.