U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE III— ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › Part Part V— Enforcement Provisions

19 U.S.C. § 1615

Burden of proof in forfeiture proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
In all suits or actions (other than those arising under section 1592 of this title) brought for the forfeiture of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage seized under the provisions of any law relating to the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, where the property is claimed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant; and in all suits or actions brought for the recovery of the value of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage, because of violation of any such law, the burden of proof shall be upon the defendant: Provided, That probable cause shall be first shown for the institution of such suit or action, to be judged of by the court, subject to the following rules of proof:(1) The testimony or deposition of the officer of the customs who has boarded or required to come to a stop or seized a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, or has arrested a person, shall be prima facie evidence of the place where the act in question occurred.(2) Marks, labels, brands, or stamps, indicative of foreign origin, upon or accompanying mechandise 11 So in original. Probably should be “merchandise”. or containers of merchandise, shall be prima facie evidence of the foreign origin of such merchandise.(3) The fact that a vessel of any description is found, or discovered to have been, in the vicinity of any hovering vessel and under any circumstances indicating contact or communication therewith, whether by proceeding to or from such vessel, or by coming to in the vicinity of such vessel, or by delivering to or receiving from such vessel any merchandise, person, or communication, or by any other means effecting contact or communication therewith, shall be prima facie evidence that the vessel in question has visited such hovering vessel.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 615, 46 Stat. 757; Aug. 5, 1935, ch. 438, title II, § 207, 49 Stat. 525; Pub. L. 95–410, title I, § 110(d), Oct. 3, 1978, 92 Stat. 896; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 321, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2056; Pub. L. 98–573, title II, § 213(a)(13), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2987.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions somewhat similar to those in this section were contained in act Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 16, § III, T, 38 Stat. 189, the provisions of which were originally enacted in the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890, ch. 407, § 21, 26 Stat. 140, and reenacted by the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of Aug. 5, 1909, ch. 6, § 28, 36 Stat. 101, and amended by the 1913 act. Section III of the 1913 act was superseded by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 615, 42 Stat. 987, and was repealed by section 643 thereof. Section 615 of the 1922 act was superseded by section 615 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–573 and Pub. L. 98–473 inserted reference to aircraft in provisions preceding par. (1) and in par. (1).

1978—Pub. L. 95–410 inserted “(other than those arising under section 1592 of this title)” after “In all suits or actions”.

1935—Act Aug. 5, 1935, inserted a comma in place of a period at the end, inserted “subject to the following rules of proof”, and added subds. (1) to (3).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 effective Oct. 15, 1984, see section 214(e) of Pub. L. 98–573, set out as a note under section 1304 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 408 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1932–2024 · leading case: United States v. Davis, 648 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Davis, 648 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 8× “Second, it concluded that the burden-shifting approach found in 19 U.S.C. § 1615 1 applied, and therefore the initial burden rested on the government to demonstrate probable cause to believe that Le Marche was subject to forfeiture.”
United States v. One 56-Foot Motor Yacht Named the Tahuna, & New Approach, Inc., Claimant-Appellant, 702 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 6× “§ 784 , the burden of proof in this action is controlled by 19 U.S.C. § 1615 , which provides in part that “[i]n all suits or actions .”
United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, Bruce R. Morgan, Claimant-Appellee, 16 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “This declaration, which was based on information the government acquired after it instituted these proceedings, stated that Morgan was involved in a large-scale marijuana distribution network and that Morgan’s method of.”
United States v. Parcels of Land, Etc., Appeal of Lionel Laliberte, 903 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1990). · cites it 5× “§ 881 (d) instructs that the burden of proof in such forfeiture actions is governed by the customs laws, 19 U.S.C. § 1615 . 2 Under 19 U.S.C. § 1615 , the government first must establish probable cause to believe that the defendant property constitutes the proceeds of drug…”
Hardy v. State, 50 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “[6] See 19 U.S.C.A. § 1615 (West 1999). Under this federal statute, the government bears an initial burden of showing that the seized contraband is subject to forfeiture.”
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). · cites it 2× “§ 881 (a)(4)(C), see also § 881(a)(7), or that the property was not so used, see § 881(d) (incorporating 19 U. S. C. § 1615 ). Unlike monetary fines, statutory in rem forfeitures have traditionally been fixed, not by determining the appropriate value of the penalty in relation…”
Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1615 . Once probable cause is established, the claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property does not meet the criteria under which it was allegedly forfeited, recited in the relevant part of 21 U.”
United States v. John Robert Hasson, A.K.A. Heloneti Galera, A.K.A. Jack Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “1994) (burden of proof in forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1615 incorporated by 18 U.S.C.”
United States v. $87,118.00 in United States Currency & $3,490.00 in United States Currency, Appeal Of: Abiodun Oloko, 95 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “1994); and (b) that a warrantless seizure amounts to “institution of such [forfeiture] suit or action” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1615 . This court has yet to speak on either issue.”
United States v. Eighty Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Dollars ($83,320) in United States Currency & Forty Dollars ($40) in Canadian Currency, 682 F.2d 573 (6th Cir. 1982). · cites it 4× “The burden of proof in this case is the same as that applicable to forfeitures under the customs laws, as determined by 19 U.S.C. § 1615 , 4 which has been *577 made applicable to this proceeding by 21 U.”
United States v. $250,000 in United States Currency, (Two Cases) Appeal of Amador Rodriguez-Ramos (Two Cases), 808 F.2d 895 (1st Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “2 Section 881(d) directs that the burden of proof in a forfeiture action is controlled by 19 U.S.C. § 1615 . 3 Under 19 U.S.C. § 1615 , the government must initially show probable cause to believe that the property was connected with illegal drug transactions.”
United States v. Banco Cafetero Panama, Banco Cafetero Colon, Defendants-In-Rem-Appellants, 797 F.2d 1154 (2d Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “Congress has answered that question in the Government’s favor by assigning it a lenient burden of proof in obtaining forfeiture of “traceable proceeds” of drug transactions. To establish a prima facie case for forfeiture of drug proceeds, the Government need only demonstrate…”
Show all 408 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.