18 U.S.C. § 2513

Confiscation of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any electronic, mechanical, or other device used, sent, carried, manufactured, assembled, possessed, sold, or advertised in violation of section 2511 or section 2512 of this chapter may be seized and forfeited to the United States. All provisions of law relating to (1) the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage for violations of the customs laws contained in title 19 of the United States Code, (2) the disposition of such vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage or the proceeds from the sale thereof, (3) the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture, (4) the compromise of claims, and (5) the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures, shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section; except that such duties as are imposed upon the collector of customs or any other person with respect to the seizure and forfeiture of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage under the provisions of the customs laws contained in title 19 of the United States Code shall be performed with respect to seizure and forfeiture of electronic, mechanical, or other intercepting devices under this section by such officers, agents, or other persons as may be authorized or designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1974–2016 · leading case: United States v. Ronald D. Chick

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Ronald D. Chick (1995) ca9 · cites it 5× “Chick contends the criminal charges should be dismissed because he has already been subjected to punishment for the same offenses through a civil forfeiture action under 18 U.S.C. § 2513 , which ultimately resulted in the entry of a consent judgment.”

United States v. John Edward Skidmore, Jr. (92-3665), and John Edward Skidmore, Sr. (92-3666) (1993) ca6 · cites it 2× “A provision of the plea agreement required the Skid-mores to forfeit substantial property to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2513 . The district court accepted the guilty pleas but expressed reservations about the propriety of forfeiture.”

Abu-Shawish v. United States (2015) uscfc · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 2513 (a)(1). Therefore, in order for this court to have jurisdiction, a plaintiff must obtain a certificate of innocence from the district court which states that not only was he not guilty of the crime of conviction, but also that none of his acts related to the…”

United States v. Thomas Mills, Sr. (2014) ca4 · cites it 2× “A district court has “substantial discretion” when determining whether to grant or deny a certificate of innocence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2513 . Graham, 608 F.3d at 166 .”

John A. Betts v. United States (1993) ca7 “§ 730 (b), the forerunner to 18 U.S.C. § 2513 (b)).”

United States v. $633,021.67 in United States Currency (1993) gand · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs Complaint also suggests that jurisdiction may exist pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2513 . Id. at ¶ 21 , In their motions, Claimants assert that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant property because it was not seized within the Northern District of Georgia.”

United States v. Ford (1977) cadc “18 U.S.C. § 2513 (“in violation of section 2511 or section 2512 of this chapter”); 23 D.”

United States v. United States Currency in the Amount of One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand, One Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollar (1992) nyed “§ 2342 (contraband cigarettes); 18 U.S.C. § 2513 (electronic surveillance devices); 19 U.”

United States v. One MacOm Video Cipher Ii, Sn A6j050073, Anthony E. Goldberg, Claimant-Appellee (1993) ca6 “The United States of America (“government”) filed a forfeiture action under 18 U.S.C. § 2513 (1988) against certain electronic devices which were used, sent, carried, manufactured, assembled, possessed, sold, or advertised in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy…”

United States v. Lambus (2016) nyed “Motion to Suppress Recordings from Wiretap Authorized on January 9, 2015 In its January 9, 2015 wiretap application, the government violated 18 U.S.C. § 2513 (l)(e) by failing to disclose “previous applications” for wiretaps of some of target interceptees in the January 9th…”

United States v. Richard Lee Bast and Redex Corporation (1974) cadc “” 2 Seizure was apparently predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 2513 . *141 Execution of the warrant resulted in the seizure of electronic devices and business records from the offices of Redex Corporation.”

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.