28 U.S.C. § 2462
Time for commencing proceedings
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 566
cases (96 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 816 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2016).
Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 816 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2016). “We agree with the district court and conclude that Sierra Club’s claim for civil penalties is statutorily time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 because it was brought more than five years after the date when the cause of action first accrued.”
United States v. Robert E. Meyer, 808 F.2d 912 (1st Cir. 1987). “issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the five-year statute of limitations for enforcement of civil penalties, 28 U.S.C. § 2462 , as applied to sanctions imposed under the Export Administration Act’s antiboycott regulations, is triggered on the date the predicate…”
Saad v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 873 F.3d 297 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “2 In Kokesh, the Supreme Court ruled that disgorgement paid to the Government is a “penalty” subject to the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 . 137 S. Ct. at 1643 - 45, slip op.”
Liu v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020). “___ (2017), this Court held that a disgorgement order in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action imposes a “penalty” for the purposes of 28 U. S. C. §2462 , the applicable statute of limitations.”
Kokesh v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017). “" 28 U.S.C. § 2462 . This case presents the question whether § 2462 applies to claims for disgorgement imposed as a sanction for violating a federal securities law.”
United States v. Phoday Phattey, 943 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 2019). “PHATTEY SUMMARY** Immigration Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the government, the panel held that the five-year statute of limitations set out by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 , which generally applies to actions to enforce civil penalties, does not apply…”
People v. Thoro Prods. Co., Inc., 70 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2003). “§ 3282 (federal criminal offenses); 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (civil actions). While it is true that most RCRA cases have interpreted "disposal" to include passive migration, none have done so in the context of a criminal statute of limitations.”
Kokesh v. SEC, 198 L. Ed. 2d 86 (2017). “This Court has held that 28 U. S. C. §2462 , which es- tablishes a 5-year limitations period for “an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture,” applies when the Commission seeks monetary civil penalties.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'r v. Barry J. Graham, eta l, 823 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2016). “*1359 JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: With few exceptions, 28 U.S.C. § 2462 bars the government from bringing suit to enforce “any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” after five years from when the claim first accrued.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mohn, 465 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2006). “§ 78u(f), or barred by the statute of limitations as set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 . For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.”
James M. Mullikin v. United States, 952 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1992). “The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and on July 13, 1990, the district court sustained Mullikin’s motion for partial summary judgment finding first that the five year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies to the assessment of penalties…”
United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wey, 246 F. Supp. 3d 894 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “Under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 , any action by the SEC “for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise,” must be “commenced within fiv.”
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.