18 U.S.C. § 984

Civil forfeiture of fungible property

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

(a)(1) In any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is cash, monetary instruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution (as defined in section 20 of this title), or precious metals—(A) it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture; and(B) it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has been removed and replaced by identical property.(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), any identical property found in the same place or account as the property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture shall be subject to forfeiture under this section.(b) No action pursuant to this section to forfeit property not traceable directly to the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture may be commenced more than 1 year from the date of the offense.(c)(1) Subsection (a) does not apply to an action against funds held by a financial institution in an interbank account unless the account holder knowingly engaged in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture.(2) In this subsection—(A) the term “financial institution” includes a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101(b)(7))); 11 See References in Text note below. and(B) the term “interbank account” means an account held by one financial institution at another financial institution primarily for the purpose of facilitating customer transactions.(d) Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the ability of the Government to forfeit property under any provision of law if the property involved in the offense giving rise to the forfeiture or property traceable thereto is available for forfeiture.(Added Pub. L. 102–550, title XV, § 1522(a), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4063; amended Pub. L. 103–325, title IV, § 411(c)(2)(E), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2253; Pub. L. 106–185, § 13(a), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 218.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 1(b)(7) of the International Banking Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (c)(2)(A), is classified to section 3101(7) of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

Amendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–185, § 13(a)(1), (2), redesignated subsec. (b) as (a), substituted “or precious metals” for “or other fungible property” in introductory provisions of par. (1) and “subsection (b)” for “subsection (c)” in par. (2), and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: “This section shall apply to any action for forfeiture brought by the Government in connection with any offense under section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of this title or section 5322 or 5324 of title 31, United States Code.”

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–185, § 13(a)(1), redesignated subsec. (c) as (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (a).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–185, § 13(a)(1), redesignated subsec. (d) as (c). Former subsec. (c) redesignated (b).

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 106–185, § 13(a)(3)(A), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1) which read as follows: “No action pursuant to this section to forfeit property not traceable directly to the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture may be taken against funds held by a financial institution in an interbank account, unless the financial institution holding the account knowingly engaged in the offense.”

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 106–185, § 13(a)(3)(B), substituted “In this subsection—” for “As used in this section, the term”, added subpar. (A), and inserted “(B) the term” before “ ‘interbank account’ means”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 106–185, § 13(a)(4), added subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (c).

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–325 substituted “section 5322 or 5324 of title 31” for “section 5322 of title 31”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2000 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–185 applicable to any forfeiture proceeding commenced on or after the date that is 120 days after Apr. 25, 2000, see section 21 of Pub. L. 106–185, set out as a note under section 1324 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 832 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 832 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “In that case, the government sought forfeiture of the defendant funds under 18 U.S.C. § 984 , which permits the United States to pursue the forfeiture of “fungible property” (such as money) without tracing the property to particular unlawful transactions.”

In Re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props., 777 F. Supp. 2d 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 6× “In response, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 984 which provides that when the property subject to forfeiture is “funds deposited in an account in a financial institution .”

United States v. Loren George Jennings, 487 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “18 U.S.C. § 984 (b) sets forth a one-year statute of limitations for actions “pursuant to this section.”

United States v. All Funds Presently on Deposit or Attempted to Be Deposited in Any Accounts Maintained at Am. Express Bank, 832 F. Supp. 542 (E.D.N.Y 1993). · cites it 6× “§§ 5313 and 5324); 18 U.S.C. § 984 (civil forfeiture of fungible property involved in money laundering in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars & Fifty-Six Cents ($32,820.56) in United States Currency, 838 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The statutory requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 984 (b) that the government must trace property directly to an underlying offense after one year would present an evidentiary challenge, but it does not establish a legal barrier to a renewed action.”

United States v. All Funds on Deposit in Dime Sav. Bank of Williamsburg Account No. 58-400738-1 in the Name of Abdi, 255 F. Supp. 2d 56 (E.D.N.Y 2003). · cites it 3× “The claimants moved to dismiss the case on statute of limitations grounds, and the district court found that the action was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 984 (a)(1), 13 which applies to property that is “fungible.”

United States v. John Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050 (3rd Cir. 1996). “" The decision was handed down prior to Congress’ enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 984 , a-substitute asset provision applicable to civil forfeiture under § 981.”

United States v. Taylor, 816 F.3d 12 (2d Cir. 2016). “…No. 103-325, § 411 , 108 Stat. 2160 , 2253 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. §§ 93 , 1464, 1772d, 1786, 1818, 1821; 18 U.S.C. § 984 , 986, 1956; 31 U.S.C. §§ 5321 (a)(4)(A), 5322(a), (b), 5324(c)). . Two of the seven structuring counts concerned "split” deposits made to the…”

United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. With Bldgs., 34 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.R.I. 1999). · cites it 6× “First, they ask this Court to choose a one-year statute of limitations based on 18 U.S.C. § 984 . The United States argues for the five-year limit from 19 U.”

United States v. $814,254.76, in U.S. Currency, Contents of Valley Nat'l Bank Account No. 1500-8339, Banamex, Claimant-Appellant, 51 F.3d 207 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “The parties agree that the forfeiture can only be upheld through the retrospective application of 18 U.S.C. § 984 , which was passed in October of 1992 as part of the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money-Laundering Act of 1992, Pub.”

United States v. Union Bank for Sav. & Inv., 487 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2007). “Section 984 provides for the forfeiture of "any identical property found in the same place or account as,” inter alia, forfeitable "funds deposited in an account in a financial institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 984 (a), so long as the forfeiture action is commenced within one year of…”

United States v. 4323 Bellwood Circle, Atlanta, Georgia 30349, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (N.D. Ga. 2010). · cites it 4× “Knowlin argues that the Government’s only basis for its forfeiture action is either that the Defendant Property is a substitute asset, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 984 , or that the parcel is “traceable to” a statutory violation.”

Show all 57 citing cases →

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.