N.J. Stat. » Title 2C — THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 2C:64-1 (2026)

Property subject to forfeiture

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2C:64-1. Property Subject to Forfeiture.

a. Any interest in the following shall be subject to forfeiture and no property right shall exist in them:

(1) Controlled dangerous substances; firearms which are unlawfully possessed, carried, acquired or used; illegally possessed gambling devices; untaxed or otherwise contraband cigarettes or tobacco products; unlawfully possessed container e-liquid; untaxed special fuel; unlawful sound recordings and audiovisual works; and items bearing a counterfeit mark. These shall be designated prima facie contraband.

(2) All property which has been, or is intended to be, utilized in furtherance of an unlawful activity, including, but not limited to, conveyances intended to facilitate the perpetration of illegal acts, or buildings or premises maintained for the purpose of committing offenses against the State.

(3) Property which has become or is intended to become an integral part of illegal activity, including, but not limited to, money which is earmarked for use as financing for an illegal gambling enterprise.

(4) Proceeds of illegal activities, including, but not limited to, property or money obtained as a result of the sale of prima facie contraband as defined by subsection a. (1), proceeds of illegal gambling, prostitution, bribery and extortion.

(5) An all-terrain vehicle or dirt bike which has been operated on a public street, highway, or right-of-way in violation of section 17 of P.L.1973, c.307 (C.39:3C-17) in a municipality that has passed an ordinance declaring that such all-terrain vehicles or dirt bikes so operated pose an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and designating such vehicles as contraband as authorized by subsection e. of section 1 of P.L.2019, c.505 (C.39:3C-35).

b. Any article subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized by the State or any law enforcement officer as evidence pending a criminal prosecution pursuant to N.J.S.2C:64-4 or, when no criminal proceeding is instituted, upon process issued by any court of competent jurisdiction over the property, except that seizure without such process may be made when not inconsistent with the Constitution of this State or the United States, and when

(1) The article is prima facie contraband; or

(2) The property subject to seizure poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare.

c. For the purposes of this section:

"Items bearing a counterfeit mark" means items bearing a counterfeit mark as defined in section 1 of P.L.1997, c.57 (C.2C:21-32).

"Unlawful sound recordings and audiovisual works" means sound recordings and audiovisual works as those terms are defined in section 1 of P.L.1991, c.125 (C.2C:21-21) which were produced in violation of section 1 of P.L.1991, c.125 (C.2C:21-21).

"Unlawfully possessed container e-liquid" means container e-liquid as defined in section 2 of P.L.1990, c.39 (C.54:40B-2) that is possessed for retail sale by a person that is not licensed as a vapor business pursuant to section 4 of P.L.2019, c.147 (C.54:40B-3.3).

"Untaxed special fuel" means diesel fuel, No. 2 fuel oil and kerosene on which the motor fuel tax imposed pursuant to R.S.54:39-1 et seq. is not paid that is delivered, possessed, sold or transferred in this State in a manner not authorized pursuant to R.S.54:39-1 et seq. or P.L.1938, c.163 (C.56:6-1 et seq.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: James J. Giuffre v. Nicholas Bissell Richard Thornburg Robert Smith Russ Leffert Sam Debella Richard Meyers Cnty. of Somerset, 31 F.3d 1241 (3rd Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James J. Giuffre v. Nicholas Bissell Richard Thornburg Robert Smith Russ Leffert Sam Debella Richard Meyers Cnty. of Somerset, 31 F.3d 1241 (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “That transaction was ostensibly authorized under the forfeiture provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 1 because Giuffre signed a written statement admitting that the two building lots were purchased in part with illegal drug proceeds.”
State of New Jersey v. Amboy Nat'l Bank Account, 146 A.3d 188 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 5× “On October 20, 2010, the State commenced an action pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 for forfeiture of the contents of the three bank accounts as well as the cash seized from the Bovery residence, alleging that all the money was used or intended to be used in the commission of…”
State v. Melendez, 186 A.3d 284 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). · cites it 2× “The statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9, allows the State to file an in rem action against two primary categories of seized property: (a) prima facie contraband, such as illegal drugs; and (b) derivative contraband, which is either the proceeds of illegal activity, or property that…”
State v. Seven Thousand Dollars, 642 A.2d 967 (N.J. 1994). “A 2C:64-la(l). Non-prima facie contraband, also known as derivátive contraband, is itself innocent in nature but has been used or is intended to be used in furtherance of an unlawful activity or is the proceeds of illegal activities.”
State v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird, 852 A.2d 1114 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004). “The focal issue in this case is the constitutionality of New Jersey’s criminal instrumentality forfeiture law, N.J.S.A 2C:64-1 to -9 (the Act). The trial court held that the seizure of a motor vehicle pursuant to N.”
State v. 6 Shot Colt .357, 839 A.2d 155 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003). “The court is satisfied that the assault weapon and the accompanying magazines are contraband per se and are illegal to possess.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Scott Geddes (14-05-0625, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 5× “Although the State in its opposition to defendant's motion had not referenced New Jersey's forfeiture statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9, the motion judge "interpret[ed] the State's general argument as an implicit invocation" of it.”
State of New Jersey Vs. $2,430.00 in U.S. Currency (dc-0820-16, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 2× “at 234 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1(a)). The January 7, 2020 order denying reconsideration also fails to expound upon the sole reason supporting the judgment confirming forfeiture.”
In the Matter of Richard Huften's Application for a Permit to Carry a Handgun, Etc. (gp-0022-20, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 (permitting forfeiture of firearms used in conjunction with criminal activity); 2C:25-21(d) (providing for seizure of firearms owned or possessed by a person subject to a domestic violence final restraining order); and 2C:58-24, -26 (providing for the…”
State of New Jersey v. $3,979.00 in U.S. Currency (dc-000081-21, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “A-3714-20 2 On January 6, 2021, the State filed a complaint in the Law Division, Special Civil Part, seeking forfeiture of those items pursuant to the Forfeiture and Seizure of Property Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -13. In the complaint, the State alleged the listed seized items…”
State of New Jersey v. Jose R. Morales-rivera (18-04-0066, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “Additionally, citing N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1, the judge found impoundment of defendant's car was proper because "it was subject to forfeiture in light of the fact that it was allegedly used in the course of criminal activity.”
B.D. v. Sussex Cnty. Prosecutor's Off. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). · cites it 2× “The SCPO then filed a complaint in the Law Division, seeking forfeiture of that money and vehicles pursuant to the Forfeiture and Seizure of Property Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -13 (the Forfeiture Act).”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:64-1(a) — 4 cases
State v. Melendez, 186 A.3d 284 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “The statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9, allows the State to file an in rem action against two primary categories of seized property: (a) prima facie contraband, such as illegal drugs; and (b) derivative contraband, which is either the proceeds of illegal activity, or property that…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Scott Geddes (14-05-0625, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). “Although the State in its opposition to defendant's motion had not referenced New Jersey's forfeiture statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9, the motion judge "interpret[ed] the State's general argument as an implicit invocation" of it.”
State of New Jersey Vs. $2,430.00 in U.S. Currency (dc-0820-16, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “at 234 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1(a)). The January 7, 2020 order denying reconsideration also fails to expound upon the sole reason supporting the judgment confirming forfeiture.”
State of New Jersey v. $3,979.00 in U.S. Currency (dc-000081-21, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). “A-3714-20 2 On January 6, 2021, the State filed a complaint in the Law Division, Special Civil Part, seeking forfeiture of those items pursuant to the Forfeiture and Seizure of Property Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -13. In the complaint, the State alleged the listed seized items…”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:64-1(a)(1) — 5 cases
State of New Jersey v. Amboy Nat'l Bank Account, 146 A.3d 188 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “On October 20, 2010, the State commenced an action pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 for forfeiture of the contents of the three bank accounts as well as the cash seized from the Bovery residence, alleging that all the money was used or intended to be used in the commission of…”
Chey v. Labruno (D.N.J. 2022).
State of New Jersey Vs. Scott Geddes (14-05-0625, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). “Although the State in its opposition to defendant's motion had not referenced New Jersey's forfeiture statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9, the motion judge "interpret[ed] the State's general argument as an implicit invocation" of it.”
In the Matter of Richard Huften's Application for a Permit to Carry a Handgun, Etc. (gp-0022-20, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). “See N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 (permitting forfeiture of firearms used in conjunction with criminal activity); 2C:25-21(d) (providing for seizure of firearms owned or possessed by a person subject to a domestic violence final restraining order); and 2C:58-24, -26 (providing for the…”
In the Matter of P.F.C. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:64-1(a)(2) — 5 cases
State of New Jersey Vs. Scott Geddes (14-05-0625, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). “Although the State in its opposition to defendant's motion had not referenced New Jersey's forfeiture statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9, the motion judge "interpret[ed] the State's general argument as an implicit invocation" of it.”
State of New Jersey Vs. $2,430.00 in U.S. Currency (dc-0820-16, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “at 234 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1(a)). The January 7, 2020 order denying reconsideration also fails to expound upon the sole reason supporting the judgment confirming forfeiture.”
State of New Jersey v. Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ten Dollars, Etc. (l-1567-16, Union Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
State of New Jersey v. Jose R. Morales-rivera (18-04-0066, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). “Additionally, citing N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1, the judge found impoundment of defendant's car was proper because "it was subject to forfeiture in light of the fact that it was allegedly used in the course of criminal activity.”
B.D. v. Sussex Cnty. Prosecutor's Off. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “The SCPO then filed a complaint in the Law Division, seeking forfeiture of that money and vehicles pursuant to the Forfeiture and Seizure of Property Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -13 (the Forfeiture Act).”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:64-1(a)(3) — 1 case
State of New Jersey v. Amboy Nat'l Bank Account, 146 A.3d 188 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “On October 20, 2010, the State commenced an action pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 for forfeiture of the contents of the three bank accounts as well as the cash seized from the Bovery residence, alleging that all the money was used or intended to be used in the commission of…”
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.