Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-701 (2026)
Legislative intent
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The general assembly finds and declares that an effective means of deterring criminal acts committed for financial gain is through the forfeiture of profits and proceeds acquired and accumulated as a result of such criminal activities.
- (b) It is the intent of the general assembly to provide the necessary tools to law enforcement agencies and district attorneys general to punish and deter the criminal activities of professional criminals and organized crime through the unitary enforcement of effective forfeiture and penal laws. It is the intent of the general assembly, consistent with due process of law, that all property acquired and accumulated as a result of criminal offenses be forfeited to the state, and that the proceeds be used to fund further law enforcement efforts in this state.
- (c) It is further the intent of the general assembly to protect bona fide interest holders and innocent owners of property under this part. It is the intent of the general assembly to provide for the forfeiture of illegal profits without unduly interfering with commercially protected interests.
Acts 1998, ch. 979, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2017). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-701 (b). To effectuate this intent, the General Assembly has declared that [a]ny property, real or personal, directly or indirectly acquired by or received in violation of any statute or as an inducement to violate any statute, or any property traceable…”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Gravano, 108 P.3d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 75D-1 to D-14 (2003); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-701 to -17 (2003); Utah Code Ann.”
State of Tennessee v. A Tract of Land Known as 141 Belle Forest Circle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “” Contemporaneously, on March 29, 1999, the State filed a “Complaint for Forfeiture” in the Davidson County Criminal Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-701 through -717 (2000 Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “3 The Defendant-Appellant contends that the forfeiture of his $1,098,050 in cash violated the forfeiture statutes outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-11-701 to -717, thereby entitling him to the return of these funds.”
State of Tennessee v. $133,429 In U.S. Currency Seized From Joni Assefa Kilenton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “Currency pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-701, et seq. The State attached, to its petition, the forfeiture warrant, Agent Hill’s affidavit supporting the warrant, notices of seizure, and disclaimers of ownership of currency.”
In Re Tennessee Walking Horse Forfeiture Litig. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-701 (a). Appellees’ argument appears to contend that the forfeiture statutes cannot apply because the forfeiture in this case does not serve this purpose.”
In Re Prop. of Twyla Miles (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “The complaint sought forfeiture of the property pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-701 et seq. and includes the following pertinent allegations: In 2014, Twyla Miles was identified as a supplier in a drug ring network during ―Operation Whitehaven Dilaudid Family‖ conducted by…”
Charles A. Harmon v. James J.J. Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “The appellants then asserted that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-701 et seq provided the trial court jurisdiction over seizures of property in both criminal prosecutions and non-criminal prosecutions.”
State of Tennessee v. Lucian Henry Marshall, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-708 (b), (c), (d) (2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-701(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “3 The Defendant-Appellant contends that the forfeiture of his $1,098,050 in cash violated the forfeiture statutes outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-11-701 to -717, thereby entitling him to the return of these funds.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-701(b) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “3 The Defendant-Appellant contends that the forfeiture of his $1,098,050 in cash violated the forfeiture statutes outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-11-701 to -717, thereby entitling him to the return of these funds.”
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.