U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 163— FINES, PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES

28 U.S.C. § 2466

Fugitive disentitlement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A judicial officer may disallow a person from using the resources of the courts of the United States in furtherance of a claim in any related civil forfeiture action or a claim in third party proceedings in any related criminal forfeiture action upon a finding that such person—(1) after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for his apprehension, in order to avoid criminal prosecution—(A) purposely leaves the jurisdiction of the United States;(B) declines to enter or reenter the United States to submit to its jurisdiction; or(C) otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the court in which a criminal case is pending against the person; and(2) is not confined or held in custody in any other jurisdiction for commission of criminal conduct in that jurisdiction.(b) Subsection (a) may be applied to a claim filed by a corporation if any majority shareholder, or individual filing the claim on behalf of the corporation is a person to whom subsection (a) applies.(Added Pub. L. 106–185, § 14(a), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 219; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title III, § 322, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 315; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, § 1171(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3123; Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, § 406(a)(1), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 244.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–177 directed amendment of directory language of Pub. L. 107–56, § 322, identical to amendment by Pub. L. 109–162. See below.

Pub. L. 109–162 amended directory language of Pub. L. 107–56, § 322. See 2001 Amendment note below.

2001—Pub. L. 107–56, § 322, as amended by Pub. L. 109–162, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, § 1171(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3123, provided in part that the amendment made by section 1171(c) of Pub. L. 109–162 is effective Oct. 26, 2001.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 106–185, § 14(c), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 219, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to any case pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 25, 2000].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · 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 6× “Default judgment was entered after the government successfully moved to disentitle the claimants from defending their claims to the defendant property under the federal fugitive disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466 . The claimants appeal the judgment on several grounds, most…”
United States v. Technodyne LLC, 753 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “The judgments were entered by default after the court granted the motion of the United States pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466 , to strike Claimants’ claims to the 23 properties on the ground that Padma and Reddy (collectively the “Al-lens”)…”
Collazos v. United States, 368 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 14× “202 , 219 (2000), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2466 . Stella Collazos is a Colombian national indicted in federal and state courts for her alleged operation of a multi-million dollar money-laundering enterprise.”
United States v. Salti, 579 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “On the Government’s motion, the court dismissed A1 Ammouri’s claim pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466 , and dismissed Mary Salti’s claim finding she lacked standing.”
United States v. $671,160.00 in U.S. Currency, 730 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 11× “On the government’s motion, the district court invoked the Fugitive Disentitlement Statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2466 , 1 to strike Ionita’s claim to the funds.”
United States v. $6,976,934.65, Plus Interest Deposited Into Royal Bank of Scotland Int'l, Account No. 2029-56141070, Held in the Name of Soulbury Ltd., 554 F.3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 7× “The district court invoked the fugitive disen-titlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466 (Supp. V 2005), to grant summary-judgment to *125 the government against a claim to the money filed by appellant Soulbury Limited, a British Virgin Islands corporation.”
United States v. $525,695.24, Seized From JPMorgan Chase Bank Inv. Account XXXXXXXX, 869 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “(collectively “Claimants”), filed a verified claim to eighteen of the assets; however, the govern *432 ment moved to strike that claim based on the fugitive disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466 . The district court granted the government’s motion to strike Claimants’ claim…”
United States v. $525,695.24, Seized From JPMorgan Chase Bank Inv. Account XXXXXXXX, 869 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “Claimant Sbeih Sbeih filed a verified claim to seven of the bank accounts; however, the government moved to strike that claim based on the fugitive disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466 . The district court granted the government’s motion to strike Sbeih’s claim and…”
United States v. $6,976,934.65 Plus Interest, 478 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2007). · cites it 6× “Later the same day, the government filed a Motion [53] to Strike the Claim and Answer of Claimant Soulbury Limited Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2466 , which contends that the federal fugitive disentitlement statute enables the Court to disallow Soulbury from proceeding with its claim…”
United States v. Joseph Fischer, 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1952 (a)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 2466 (a)(1)(C). In such statutes, “the use of the introductory word ‘otherwise’ indicates that the evasion referred to in the [catch-all provision] reaches beyond the[] specific examples [in the preceding sections] to myriad means that human ingenuity…”
United States v. $6,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 581 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 8× “After it became apparent that Lam had become a fugitive, the federal district court, acting under 28 U.S.C. § 2466 , struck Lam’s claim to his assets in the civil forfeiture proceeding.”
United States v. One 1988 Chevrolet Cheyenne Half-Ton Pickup Truck, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (S.D. Ala. 2005). · cites it 5× “of the following five prerequisites: (1) warrant or process had been issued for the person’s arrest; (2) the person had notice or knowledge of such warrant or process; (3) the criminal case was related to the civil forfeiture action; (4) with such knowledge and with the intent…”
Show all 71 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.