U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 85— DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 1355

Fine, penalty or forfeiture

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of any action or proceeding for the recovery or enforcement of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, incurred under any Act of Congress, except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title.(b)(1) A forfeiture action or proceeding may be brought in—(A) the district court for the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred, or(B) any other district where venue for the forfeiture action or proceeding is specifically provided for in section 1395 of this title or any other statute.(2) Whenever property subject to forfeiture under the laws of the United States is located in a foreign country, or has been detained or seized pursuant to legal process or competent authority of a foreign government, an action or proceeding for forfeiture may be brought as provided in paragraph (1), or in the United States District court 11 So in original. Probably should be capitalized. for the District of Columbia.(c) In any case in which a final order disposing of property in a civil forfeiture action or proceeding is appealed, removal of the property by the prevailing party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction. Upon motion of the appealing party, the district court or the court of appeals shall issue any order necessary to preserve the right of the appealing party to the full value of the property at issue, including a stay of the judgment of the district court pending appeal or requiring the prevailing party to post an appeal bond.(d) Any court with jurisdiction over a forfeiture action pursuant to subsection (b) may issue and cause to be served in any other district such process as may be required to bring before the court the property that is the subject of the forfeiture action.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 934; Pub. L. 96–417, title V, § 507, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1743; Pub. L. 102–550, title XV, § 1521, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4062.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 41(9) and 371(2) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 24, par. 9, 256, par. 2, 36 Stat. 1092, 1160).

Word “fine” was inserted so that this section will apply to the many provisions in the United States Code for fines which are essentially civil. (See, also, section 2461 of this title and reviser’s note thereunder.)

Words “pecuniary or otherwise” were added to make this section expressly applicable to both pecuniary and property forfeitures. The original section was so construed in Miller v. United States, 1870, 11 Wall. 268, 20 L.Ed. 135; Tyler v. Defrees, 1870, 11 Wall. 331, and The Rosemary, C.C.A. 1928, 26 F.2d 354, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 23, 278 U.S. 619, 73 L.Ed. 542.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–550 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) to (d).

1980—Pub. L. 96–417 inserted exception for matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–417 applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after the 90th day after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(c)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 357 cases (79 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: United States v. Finn Batato, 833 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Finn Batato, 833 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “The district court asserted in rem jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355 (b)(2). 1 There is a potential split in the 1For convenience, the relevant portions of § 1355 are reproduced here: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of…”
United States v. Younes Nasri, 119 F.4th 1172 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 37× “The government brought a civil forfeiture action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355 , against Nasri’s assets in a foreign bank account.”
United States v. All Funds in Account Nos. 747.034/278, 747.009/278, & 747.714/278 Banco Espanol De Credito, 295 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “The government brought the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355 and 21 U.S.C. § 881 against $4.”
United States v. Cyril Plainbull Arvilla Plainbull, 957 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1992). · cites it 7× “§ 1345 (1988), which confers jurisdiction when the United States is a plaintiff; and 28 U.S.C. § 1355 (1988), under which the Government filed this suit.”
United States v. Tarek Obaid, 971 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 7× “The panel concluded that the conspiratorial activity in the Central District was sufficient to support venue given the relatively low standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1355 . The panel also held that whether Obaid was involved in the conspiracy was immaterial to the venue…”
Repub. Nat'l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80 (1992). · cites it 3× “Effective October 28, 1992, § 1521 amended 28 U. S. C. § 1355 to provide that "[i]n any case in which a final order disposing of property in a civil forfeiture action or proceeding is appealed, removal of the property by the prevailing party shall not deprive the court of…”
Ibinga Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Construing Bertin’s action as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355 , the court dismissed it because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing no administrative claim within the two-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.”
United States v. Approximately $1.67 Million (US) in Cash, Stock, & Other Valuable Assets Held by or At: 1) Total Aviation Ldt., 513 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “The correct test, the parties contend, derives from a plain reading of the jurisdictional statute in question, 28 U.S.C. § 1355 (b), which provides for jurisdiction in a district “in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.”
Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980). · cites it 2× “§§ 85 , 86, which adopts the interest limits set by state law, and on 28 U. S. C. § 1355 . [2] Although respondents also asked for attorney's fees, their complaint shows that fees were to be granted only from the damages ultimately awarded to them or the class.”
United States v. Donald Wilson, 699 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “The subject matter jurisdiction for forfeiture is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1355 (a); the authority to forfeit is provided by 21 U.”
United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 3× “es of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because: (1) there is no statutory or non-statutory basis for exercising jurisdiction in this case; (2) the ex post facto clause bars the retroactive application of statutory jurisdiction based on statutes that were…”
Joseph W. Hales v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 500 F.2d 836 (4th Cir. 1974). · cites it 8× “§ 1332 (a)(1), 2 and under Count II pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355 and 29 U.S.C. § 308 (c).”
Show all 357 citing cases →
28 U.S.C. § 1355(a): 1 case
Agarwal v. United States, No. 2018-3125 (D.D.C. June 13, 2019).
28 U.S.C. § 1355(b): 1 case
United States v. Younes Nasri, 119 F.4th 1172 (9th Cir. 2024). “The government brought a civil forfeiture action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355 , against Nasri’s assets in a foreign bank account.”
28 U.S.C. § 1355(c): 1 case
United States v. M/Y Amadea, No. 1:23-cv-09304 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2025).
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.