United States v. $579,475,00 in U.S. Currency
879 F.3d 855
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- In Sept. 2014 Arkansas police stopped a tractor-trailer, consented to search, and seized $579,475 in U.S. currency; drivers disclaimed interest.
- The government filed a civil forfeiture complaint under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) alleging the funds were drug proceeds.
- LNG Express filed a timely verified claim asserting ownership: it demanded return of the $579,475 and claimed “all of the right, title, and interest in said defendant‑in‑rem as the owner thereof.”
- The government moved to strike the verified claim under Supplemental Rule G(5) (or alternatively for summary judgment), arguing LNG’s pleading lacked required specificity about its interest.
- The district court struck LNG’s claim as insufficient under Rule G(5) and entered a forfeiture decree; LNG appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding LNG’s ownership assertion was materially indistinguishable from the deficient claim rejected in United States v. $154,853.00 in U.S. Currency, 744 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2014).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claimant’s verified claim that generally asserts ownership ("all right, title, and interest as the owner") satisfies Rule G(5)’s requirement to state the claimant’s interest with sufficient specificity | LNG: its assertion of full ownership satisfies Rule G(5) because it identifies the claimant and claims ownership of the seized currency | Government: the claim is a bald/general ownership assertion lacking the specificity Rule G(5) requires; it fails threshold pleading and may be struck | Court: Affirmed district court — generic ownership language is materially indistinguishable from the inadequate claim in $154,853.00; Rule G(5) requires some specificity and the claim was properly struck |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. $154,853.00 in U.S. Currency, 744 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2014) (requires claimants to state their interest in seized property with some specificity; bare ownership assertions can be inadequate)
- United States v. Three Parcels of Real Prop., 43 F.3d 388 (8th Cir. 1994) (same principle: claim must adequately describe interest)
- United States v. $104,674.00, 17 F.3d 267 (8th Cir. 1994) (recognizes pleading specificity requirement for forfeiture claims)
- United States v. $196,969 U.S. Currency, 719 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013) (contrasting view: a bald assertion of ownership can satisfy Rule G(5))
- United States v. $31,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 872 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2017) (at pleading stage, a verified ownership claim can suffice for Article III and Rule G requirements)