Dаniela BOTTINI, et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, Montgomery County, Maryland
No. 3, Sept. Term, 2016
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
October 7, 2016
147 A.3d 371
Haley M. Roberts, Associate County Attorney (Marc P. Hansen, County Attorney, Edward B. Lattner, Division Chief, Office of the County Attorney of Rockville, MD) on brief for Respondent.
Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Getty, Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Watts, J.
Everyone is familiar with the saying “the money is in the bank.” But we possibly have not considered what this phrase really means and what a bank account actually contains. This case calls upon the Court to address the question of whether the funds in a bank account are “money” for purposes of Maryland‘s forfeiture statute,
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2012, law enforcement officers of the Montgomery County Department of Police arrested Gianpaolo Bottini (“Gianpaolo“),2 Petitioner, at his residence for illegal drug activity.3 Shortly after Gianpaolo‘s arrest, as part of their investigation and pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcement officers seized from Gianpaolo‘s residence, among other things, drug paraphernalia, items with suspected drug residue, tally sheets, Bank of America banking documents and statements, and United States currency in the amount of $5,610.4
On April 18, 2012, law enforcement officers obtained subpoenas for both of Gianpaolo‘s Bank of America bank accounts. At that time, law enforcement discovered that all of the money contained in Gianpaolo‘s Bank of America bank accounts had been withdrawn, and they traced the money to Daniela‘s Capital One bank account. On that same day, April 18, 2012, a law enforcement officer applied for a search and seizure warrant for Daniela‘s Capital One bank account. In the application, the law enforcement officer averred that law enforcement had obtained wage records for Gianpaolo, which indicated that Gianpaolo had no reported income in the past year. Indeed, Gianpaolo had no legitimate source of income at all supporting the amount of money contained in his Bank of America bank accounts. This led law enforcement to believe that the money that was transferred from Gianpaolo‘s Bank of America bank accounts was either the direct proceeds of illegal drug transactions or illegal drug proceeds that had been commingled with legitimate funds.
On April 18, 2012, a judge of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (“the circuit court“) issued a search and seizure warrant for the Capital One bank account. The following day, April 19, 2012, the Montgomery County Department of Police seized the Capital One bank account. On the same day, Montgomery County sent to Petitioners a “Notice of
Approximately one year later, on May 10, 2013, Gianpaolo‘s criminal charges were resоlved, when he was convicted and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment.5 On August 1, 2013, less than ninety days after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the Department of Finance of Montgomery County, Maryland (“the County“), Respondent, filed in the circuit court a Complaint Petition for Currency Forfeiture as to the Capital One bank account. On August 20, 2013, the County filed an Amended Complaint Petition for Currency Forfeiture. On September 27, 2013, Daniela filed an answer.
In the meantime, on August 23, 2013, the circuit court issued a show cause order, ordering Gianpaolo and Daniela to appear before the circuit court on November 18, 2013. On November 18, 2013, the circuit court conducted a hearing. At the hearing, the circuit court treated Daniela‘s answer as a motion to dismiss. Specifically, in the answer, Daniela argued that the Capital One bank account was not “money” for purposes of the forfeiture statute, and that, as a result, the complaint for forfeiture was untimely filed. In the answer, Daniela argued that the bank account was intangible personal property and that the forfeiture statute required that a complaint seeking forfeiture of intangible personаl property be filed ninety days after seizure. The County‘s complaint for forfeiture had been filed more than ninety days after seizure and would have been untimely under that theory. The circuit court rejected that argument and denied the motion to dismiss, orally ruling from the bench as follows:
Two issues before the Court. That wonderful [issue] of what is the definition of money. What constitutes money. And the second, definition as to whether the procedural requirements were, had been me[ ]t with respect to the
timing of the filing from the, under the statute, and the date of the complaint having been filed on August 1, 2013.
With respect to the first argument, it brings to mind that old Potter Stewart ... line ... from the Supreme Court decision of trying to define obscenity and Justice Stewart‘s comment that, I don‘t know how to define obscenity, but I sure know it when I see it. I have the same application to money. I don‘t know, I don‘t know that I need the legislature to tell me what the definition of money is. I know that when I open on the screen an account and I look at my money, it may be in the bank, and I guess technically the bank‘s holding it for me, but it‘s money. It better be there, it‘s my money.
So, to suggest that an account in a bank is not money and therefore [there] would be a рrocedural defect in this case suggesti[ng] that we don‘t have (unintelligible) jurisdiction, this Court simply rejects. The amount that‘s in the account by anybody‘s definition, at least in this Court‘s definition, would constitute money.
Secondly, the procedural requirement with regard to when the complaint has been filed. The Complaint was filed on August 1st[,] 2013, that is the date the Court looks to as to ascertain whether it was timely filed, it was, and the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
After its oral ruling, and with the agreement of the parties, the circuit court set the case in for a trial on the merits.
On April 2, 2014, the circuit court conducted a trial. At trial, Daniela again argued that the Capital One bank account was not “money” and that the complaint for forfeiture was untimely filed. At the conclusion of the trial, the circuit court again rejected that argument, explaining, in pertinent part:
The Court, in this case, finds that the intent of the legislature was to treat the designation of money, not simply to be as currency, meaning fungible cash, as argued by [d]efense counsel, but, rather, proceeds which are in a liquid state in the sense that they are funds on deposit subject to the call of the owner of those funds.
So, I‘m making a determination that, in this case, the funds which originally were deposited to two Bank of America accounts of Gianpaolo Bottini, which were cashed in on the morning of a court appearance of April 16, 2013, from Account No. 8612, in the amount of $56,009.78, and on Account ending in 5676 for $8,378.55 that those liquidations, which were then made into cashier‘s checks, which, ultimately, were deposited to a Bank of America account of Daniela Bottini, and then, ultimately, transferred to a Capital One account of Daniela Bottini, within a couple days of the termination of those accounts by Gianpaolo Bottini that those funds are money within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, the period of time for which the forfeiture must be filed is the 90 days after termination of the criminal action.
The circuit court ruled that only Gianpaolo had any right, title, or claim to the funds in the Capital One bank account, and that Daniela had no right, title, or claim to the funds, stating:
I am satisfied that, in this case, where Daniela Bottini judicially admitted, in response to the Court‘s question, that the funds were transferred to her as an accommodation for designated purposes, that they were not a gift from her brother, that they were not a loan from her brother to her, but for identified purposes of paying lawyers, caring for parents, and things of that nature, that, in essence, [Gianpaolo] did not surrender in that manner his interest in the funds, [the circuit court], therefore, find[s] that, other than being the titled owner, Daniela Bottini, the claimant in this case, does not have any interest in these funds, and, therefore, I decline to allow her any part or portion of these funds.
The circuit court pointed out, however, that Gianpaolo had one year from the date of his criminal conviction to file an answer to the complaint for forfeiture and to assert a claim to the funds in the Capital One bank account. Thus, the circuit court denied Daniela‘s claim, but declined to rule on Gianpaolo‘s claim until a year had passed from Gianpaolo‘s criminal convic-
On May 8, 2014, prior to the expiration of the one-year period, Gianpaolo filed an answer and a request for a hearing. On August 21, 2014, the circuit court conducted a trial. At the conclusion of thе trial, the circuit court found that the funds in the Capital One bank account constituted illegal drug proceeds, and, therefore, granted forfeiture of the entire amount. On that same day, the circuit court issued an order, in which it mandated “that the $63,891.93 in currency, which is the subject of this forfeiture petition, be and is hereby forfeited to [the] County[.]”
Thereafter, Gianpaolo filed a motion for new trial or, in the alternative, a motion to alter or amend the judgment, and the circuit court denied the motion.
Petitioners noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In an unreported opinion, a majority of the panel of the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Specifically, the majority held that the funds in the Capital One bank account are “money” for purposes of the forfeiture statute, and that, accordingly, the complaint for forfeiture was timely filed. In a dissent, on the other hand, one member of the panel disagreed that the Capital One bank account constituted “money” for purposes of the forfeiture statute, and instead would have concluded that the bank account is a contractual interest, claim, or right-i.e., intangible personal property-and that, as such, the complaint for forfeiture was untimely filed.
Petitioners thereafter filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted on February 19, 2016. See Bottini v. Dep‘t of Fin., Montgomery Cnty., 446 Md. 290, 132 A.3d 193 (2016).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When an action has been tried without a jury, the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
In Breeding v. Koste, 443 Md. 15, 27, 115 A.3d 106, 113 (2015), we further explained the standard of review applicable under
We give due regard to the trial court‘s role as fact-finder and will not set aside factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. The appellate court must consider evidence produced at the trial in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and if substantial evidence was presented to support the trial court‘s determination, it is not clearly erroneous and cannot be disturbed. Questions of law, however, require our non-deferential review. When the trial court‘s decision involves an interpretation and aрplication of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the [trial] court‘s conclusions are legally correct. Where a case involves both issues of fact and questions of law, this Court will apply the appropriate standard to each issue.
(Citation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
Additionally, because the issue in this case involves statutory interpretation, we set forth the pertinent rules of statutory construction:
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly.
As this Court has explained, to determine that purpose or policy, we look first to the language of the statute, giving it its natural and ordinary meaning. We do so on the tacit theory that the General Assembly is presumed to have meant what it said and said what it meant. When the statutory language is clear, we need not look beyond the statutory language to determine the General Assembly‘s intent. If the words of the statute, construed according to their common and everyday meaning, are clear and unam-
biguous and express a plain meaning, we will give effect to the statute as it is written. In addition, we neither add nor delete words to a clear and unambiguous statute to give it a meaning not reflected by the words that the General Assembly used or engage in forced or subtle interpretation in an attempt to extend or limit the statute‘s meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends.
If the language of the statute is ambiguous, however, then courts consider not only the literal or usual meaning of the words, but their meaning and effect in light of the setting, the objectives, and the purpose of the enactment under consideration. We have said that there is an ambiguity within a statute when there exist two or more reasonable alternative interpretations of the statute. When a statute can be interpreted in more than one way, the job of this Court is to resolve that ambiguity in light of the legislative intent, using all the resources and tools of statutory construction at our disposal.
If the true legislative intent cannot be readily determined from the statutory language alone, however, we may, and often must, resort to other recognized indicia-among other things, the structure of the statute, including its title; how the statute relates to other laws; the legislativе history, including the derivation of the statute, comments and explanations regarding it by authoritative sources during the legislative process, and amendments proposed or added to it; the general purpose behind the statute; and the relative rationality and legal effect of various competing constructions.
In construing a statute, we avoid a construction of the statute that is unreasonable, illogical, or inconsistent with common sense.
In addition, the meaning of the plainest language is controlled by the context in which is appears. As this Court has stated, because it is part of the context, related statutes or a statutory scheme that fairly bears on the fundamental issue
of legislative purpose or goal must also be considered. Thus, not only are we required to interpret the statute as a whole, but, if appropriate, in the context of the entire statutory scheme of which it is a part.
Wagner v. State, 445 Md. 404, 417-19, 128 A.3d 1, 9-10 (2015) (citation and brackets omitted).
DISCUSSION6
Petitioners contend that the Capital One bank account is not “money” under the forfeiture statute because, according to Petitioners, the funds in a bank account are the assets of the financial institution. According to Petitioners, a bank account is intangible personal property because Petitioners theorize that a bank depositor‘s property right vis-a-vis the bank is the intangible right to draw checks or make withdrawals against the bank‘s assets. Petitioners argue that a bank account cannot be money because, unlike money, which “must have a physical location[,]” a bank account has no physical location and consists only of the right to demand or negotiate value to a designated entity, either the depositor or someone else. Petitioners assert that the term “money,” as used in the forfeiture statute, is intended to apply only to physical, tangible greenbacks and coinage. Because Petitioners contend that a bank account is intangible personal property and not money, they argue that the County failed to timely file the complaint for forfeiture within ninety days after April 19, 2012, the date on which the Capital One bank account was seized, as required by statute.
The County responds that, under the forfeiture statute, funds held in a bank account are money. The County contends that the term “money” refers equally to coins and paper bank notes used as cаsh and currency and to wealth generally. The County asserts that, considering the definitions of “money” and “bank account” together leads to the conclusion that a bank account holds or reflects the existence of money. The
The concept of forfeiture is derived from English common law, and is “grounded in the legal fiction that an inanimate object can be guilty of a crime[.]” Dir. of Fin. of Prince George‘s Cnty. v. Cole, 296 Md. 607, 616-17, 621, 465 A.2d 450, 456, 458 (1983) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although Maryland did not practice common law forfeitures in the same manner as England, our State has adopted by statute a method of forfeiture. See id. at 618, 465 A.2d at 456. The Maryland forfeiture statute continued the common law rationale that “forfeiture was agаinst the offending article and a penalty for carelessness” and that “property is treated as the offender“; indeed, under the forfeiture statute, “the innocence of the owner of the property is no defense” and “the forfeiture itself is not considered part of the punishment for the offense[.]” Id. at 618-19, 465 A.2d at 457 (citations omitted).7 Moreover, in Maryland, forfeiture proceedings are civil proceedings completely separate and distinct from any criminal proceedings; “[t]he result of the civil proceedings either perfects the government‘s interest in the goods, or
In 1970, the General Assembly “enacted a comprehensive statute designed to control trafficking in controlled dangerous substances[,]” and, “[a]s part of its ‘full court press’ against the illicit drug traffic, it provided for the forfeiture to the State of all money or currency found to have been used or intended for use in connection with the drug traffic.” Ewachiw v. Dir. of Fin. of Balt. City, 70 Md.App. 58, 60, 519 A.2d 1327, 1328, cert. denied, 309 Md. 605, 525 A.2d 1075 (1987). In Prince George‘s Cnty. v. Blue Bird Cab Co., 263 Md. 655, 662, 284 A.2d 203, 207 (1971), we acknowledged that the forfeiture statute, “in some ways[,] is a harsh law[,]” but explained:
[H]owever, it is within the [General Assembly]‘s power to decide whether such a forfeiture provision is desirable. Its purpose is to attempt not only to curtail drug traffic in this state, but to discourage such a blight from continuing in the future. Historically, decisive action has been required to prevent any plague from spreading. In the present case[,] the [General Assembly] has clearly indicated its purpose for this act. It is to control the proliferation of dangerous drugs in our society and it is a noble purpose, but an arduous task. The measures that have been taken are not out of step with the great weight of authority.
See also Prince George‘s Cnty. v. Vieira, 340 Md. 651, 658, 667, 867 A.2d 898, 901 (1995) (The forfeiture statute “is, and was intended to be, a harsh law.” (Citation omitted)).
Although the forfeiture statute is a harsh law, as to interpretation of the forfeiture statute, this Court has explained:
[I]t is well settled that forfeiture statutes are to be interpreted under a “strict constructionist theory.” Therefore, although the statute is to be liberally interpreted and
construed ..., the forfeiting authority is still required to follow the procedures prescribed by the statute, and these procedures should be strictly imposed to provide post seizure due process protection to the defendant.
Vieira, 340 Md. at 659-60, 667 A.2d at 902 (citation omitted).
In this case, we must decide whether funds contained in a bank account are “money” for purposes of the forfeiture statute, because this determination governs the applicable deadline for the filing of a complaint for forfeiture and, ultimately, whether the complaint for forfeiture was timely filed.
(a) In general.-Except as provided under subsections (b)8 and (c) of this section, a complaint seeking forfeiture shall be filed within the earlier of:
(1) 90 days after the seizure; or
(2) 1 year after the final disposition of the criminal charge for the violation giving rise to the forfeiture.
...
(c) Proceedings about money. - (1) A proceeding about money shall be filed within 90 days after the final disposition of criminal proceedings that arise out of the Controlled Dangerous Substances law.
(2) If the State or a political subdivision does not file proceedings about money within the 90-day period, the money seized under this title shall be returned to the owner on request by the owner.
(3) If the owner fails to ask [for] the return of the money within 1 year after the final disposition of criminal proceedings, as provided under [CP] § 12-403 ..., the money shall revеrt to:
(i) the political subdivision in which the money was seized; or
(ii) the State, if the money was seized by State authorities.
(Emphasis added). The deadline for filing a complaint for forfeiture is dependent upon whether the item sought to be forfeited is money or some other property. Thus, the classification of the property sought to be forfeited is critical.
Pursuant to
everything of value furnished, or intended to be furnished, in exchange for a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substances law, all proceeds traceable to the exchange, and all negotiable instruments and securities used, or intended to be used, to facilitate any violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substances law.9
“Property” includes:
(i) real property and anything growing on or attached to real property;
(ii) tangible and intangible personal property, including:
1. securities;
2. negotiable and nonnegotiable instruments;
3. vehicles and conveyances of any type;
4. privileges;
5. interests;
6. claims; and
7. rights;
(iii) an item, object, tool, substance, device, or weapon used in connection with a crime under thе Controlled Dangerous Substances law; and
(iv) money.
Here, we hold that the funds contained in the Capital One bank account are “money” for purposes of the forfeiture statute under
We begin by examining the plain language of the forfeiture statute. By its plain language,
Black‘s Law Dictionary defines “money” as follows:
1. The medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency; esp., domestic currency <coins and currency are money>. 2. Assets that can be easily converted to cash <demand deposits are money>. 3. Capital that is invested or traded as a commodity <the money market>. 4. (pl.) Funds; sums of money <investment moneys>. -Also spelled (in sense 4) monies.
Money, Black‘s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (citation omitted). Similarly, Merriam-Webster defines “money,” in pertinent part, as:
1. : something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as
a: officially coined or stamped metal currency
b: money of account
c: paper money
2 a: wealth reckoned in terms of money
b: an amount of money
c plural: sums of money: funds
3 : a form or denomination of coin or paper money
Money, Merriam-Webster (2015), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money [https://perma.cc/2QFP-BNDR] (capitalization omitted). Money has also been described as follows:
A general, indefinite term for the measure and representative of value; currency; the circulating medium; cash. “Money” is a generic term, and embraces every description of coin or bank-notes recognized by common consent as a representative of value in effecting exchanges of property or payment of debts. Money is used in a specific and also in a general and more comprehensive sense. In its specific sense, it means what is coined or stamped by public authority, and has its determinate value fixed by governments. In its more comprehensive and general sense, it means wealth.
“What is MONEY?,” The Law Dictionary, http://www.thelаwdictionary.org/money/ (citation omitted).
These definitions demonstrate that the term “money,” defined in its most narrow sense, means coins and paper money used as cash and currency, and defined in a broader sense, means assets that can be easily converted to cash, or wealth. Thus, utilizing the ordinary definition of “money” above, it is clear that funds contained in a bank account-which certainly can be said to be a person‘s assets that can easily be converted to cash-constitute “money.” Put simply, the term “money” encompasses more than just physical currency in the form of coins and paper money, and extends to assets that can easily be converted to physical currency, or wealth, such as the funds contained in a bank account. We simply are not persuaded that the definition of the term “money” somehow precludes a determination that funds in a bank account are money, or that the term “money” as used in
Notably,
Our holding that funds in a bank account constitute money for purposes of the forfeiture statute under
A sum of money placed with a bank or banker, on deposit, by a customer, and subject to be drawn out on the latter‘s check. The statement or computation of the several sums deposited and those drawn out by the customers on checks, entered on the books of the bank and the depositor‘s passbook.
“What is BANK-ACCOUNT?,” The Law Dictionary, http://www.thelawdictionary.org/bank-account/ (citation omitted). Considering the definition of the term “bank account” in
This commonsense understanding of the tеrms “money” and “bank account” is consistent with how, in other contexts, this Court has used the term “money” to refer to funds that are deposited, withdrawn, and held within a bank account. See, e.g., Wagner, 445 Md. at 421, 128 A.3d at 11 (In a criminal case, this Court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court‘s finding that a defendant “took and used the money in the [bank] Account for her own purposes and did so without [her] Father‘s knowledge or authorization[,]” and that the defendant did not dispute the trial court‘s factual finding that she “understood that the money in the [bank] Account belonged to [her] Father[.]” (Brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)); Attorney Grievance Comm‘n v. Ross, 428 Md. 50, 78, 50 A.3d 1166, 1182 (2012) (In concluding that a lawyer violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rule of Professional Conduct—now the Maryland Attorneys’ Rule of Professional Conduct—1.15(a), concerning holding client funds separate from the lawyer‘s own property, this Court stated that the lawyer “placed the money directly into his personal bank account.“); Omayaka v. Omayaka, 417 Md. 643, 657, 12 A.3d 96, 104 (2011) (In a divorce case involving an allegation of dissipation of marital assets, this Court stated that the husband questioned the wife “about how she spent the funds that she withdrew from her bank accounts in 2005, thereby presenting the [trial court with both (1) evidence of the withdrawals, аnd (2) [the wife]‘s explanation of what she did with the money.“). In short, we conclude that the plain meaning of the term “money,” as used in
We do not find persuasive Petitioners’ reliance on
(1)(i) Money or weapons that are found in close proximity to a contraband controlled dangerous substance, controlled paraphernalia, or forfeitable records of the importation, manufacture, or distribution of controlled dangerous substances are contraband and presumed to be forfeitable.
(ii) A claimant of money or weapons has the burden to rebut the presumption.
(2) All rights in, title to, and interest in the money or weapons immediately shall vest in:
(i) the State, if the seizing authority was a State unit;
(ii) the county in which the money or weapons were seized, if the seizing authority was a county law enforcement unit, including a sheriff‘s office; or
(iii) the municipal corporation in which the money or weapons were seized, if the seizing authority was a law enforcement unit of a municipal corporation.
(3) The money or weapons may be returned to the claimant only as this title provides.12
Thus, at the time of the forfeiture proceedings in this case,
Significantly, nothing in
As to
The seizing authority that seizes money that is contraband shall immediately:
(1) photograph the contraband money and record the quantity of each denomination of coin or currеncy seized; and
(2) deposit the money to the account of the appropriate local financial authority.
Notwithstanding Petitioners’ contentions, we are unconvinced that funds in a bank account constitute tangible or intangible personal property under
In any event,
Although the plain language of the forfeiture statute is unambiguous and our analysis could end at this point, we nonetheless point out that our holding is fully supported by the legislative history and purpose of the forfeiture statute. Indeed, a review of the forfeiture statute‘s legislative history reinforces the conclusion that the plain meaning of the term “money” in
(a) The following shall be subject to forfeiture and no property right shall exist in them:
. . .
(6) All money or currency which shall be found in close proximity to contraband controlled dangerous substances or controlled paraphernalia or which otherwise has been used or intended for use in connection with the illegal manufacture, distribution, dispensing or possession of controlled dangerous substances or controlled paraphernalia.
(Emphasis added). Art. 27, § 297(a)(6) was thereafter amended to read, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Property subject to forfeiture.—The following shall be subject to forfeiture and no property right shall exist in them:
. . .
(6) All money, coin, or currency which has been used or intended for use in connection with the illegal manufacture, distribution, dispensing or possession of controlled dangerous substances or controlled paraphernalia. All money, coin, or currency which is found in close proximity to contraband controlled dangerous substances, controlled paraphernalia, or forfeitable records of the importation, manufacture, or distribution of controlled dangerous substances are presumed to be forfeitable under this paragraph. The burden of proof is upon the claimant of the property to rebut this presumption.
1982 Md. Laws 3049-50 (Vol. IV, Ch. 472, S.B. 83) (emphasis added). The General Assembly amended the forfeiture statute multiple times and, in 1989, Art. 27, § 297(a) became a definitional subsection that provided, in pertinent part:
(10) “Proceeds” includes property derived directly or indirectly in connection with or as a result of an offense or offenses under this subheading.
(11) (I) “Property” includes: . . . 4. Money.
. . .
(b) The following shall be subject to forfeiture and no property right shall exist in them:
. . .
(6) All money, coin, currency, or weapons which have been used or intеnded for use in connection with the illegal manufacture, distribution, dispensing or possession of controlled dangerous substances or controlled paraphernalia. All money, coin, currency, or weapons which are found in close proximity to contraband controlled dangerous substances, controlled paraphernalia, or forfeitable records of the importation, manufacture, or distribution of controlled dangerous substances are presumed to be forfeitable under this paragraph. The burden of proof is upon a claimant of the property to rebut this presumption.
1989 Md. Laws 2385-86 (Vol. IV, Ch. 285, S.B. 419) (emphasis added).
Thereafter, in 2001, Art. 27, § 297 was recodified in Title 12 of the new Criminal Procedure Article, 2001 Md. Laws 76-77, 445 (Vol. I, Ch. 10, S.B. 1). At that time, Art. 27, § 297(a)(10) became
(a) In general.
The following are subject to forfeiture:
. . .
(6) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, money or weapons used or intended to be used in connection with the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, or possession of a controlled dangerous substance or controlled paraphernalia[.]
. . .
(b) Money and weapons.
(1) (i) Money or weapons that are found in close proximity to a contraband controlled dangerous substance, controlled paraphernalia, or forfeitable records of the importation, manufacture, or distribution of controlled dangerous substances are contraband and presumed to be forfeitable.
(ii) A claimant of money or weapons has the burden to rebut the presumption.
2001 Md. Laws 451-52 (Vol. I, Ch. 10, S.B. 1) (emphasis added). The terms “coin” and “currency” were deleted. The Revisor‘s Note accompanying the newly added
What we glean from this legislative history is that the term “money,” as used in the forfeiture statute, is, and has always been, a broad term encompassing money in all of its forms, as well as coins and currency. As shown above, the forfeiture statute originally referred to “money or currency,” then “money, coin, or currency,” and finally just “money,” as it does
And, before we move on, we reiterate the obvious point that the General Assembly could have identified a bank account and the funds contained in a bank account as a separate classification of property subject to forfeiture, or as a specific form of tangible or intangible personal property distinct from money, had it desired to do so. Cf. Montgomery Cnty. v. Phillips, 445 Md. 55, 76, 124 A.3d 188, 200 (2015) (“Tellingly, the General Assembly could have, but did not, modify or otherwise raise the tax ceiling on the combined State agricultural land transfer tax and county agricultural land transfer tax that may be imposed.“). Absent any indication in the relevant statutory language or the legislative history that the General Assembly intended the term “money” to narrowly apply only to coins and paper bills, or for the funds in a bank account to constitute something other than “money” under
Thus, having determined that funds in a bank account constitute “money” for purposes of thе forfeiture statute, and that the funds in the Capital One bank account in this case
Because the funds in the Capital One bank account constitute money, the County was required to file a complaint for forfeiture within ninety days after the final disposition of the criminal proceedings related to Gianpaolo‘s charged violations of the Controlled Dangerous Substances law. The County did so. The final disposition of the criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo occurred on May 10, 2013, the date on which Gianpaolo was convicted and sentenced. The County had until August 8, 2013—ninety days after the final disposition of the criminal proceedings—to file a complaint for forfeiture of the Cаpital One bank account. On August 1, 2013, before the ninety-day deadline, the County filed in the circuit court the complaint for forfeiture of the Capital One bank account. We, therefore, conclude that the County timely filed the complaint for forfeiture, and that the circuit court and Court of Special Appeals correctly determined as much. As such, the money is, indeed, in the bank.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. PETITIONERS TO PAY COSTS.
Dissenting Opinion by Adkins, J.
Even though the Majority‘s holding creates a socially desirable result, I disagree with its reasoning and ultimate ruling that a bank account is “money” under Md. Code (1957, 2008 Repl. Vol.), §§ 12-101–12-505 of the Criminal Procedure Article (“CP“). We interpret statutes using well-established rules of statutory construction, and “forfeiture statutes are to be interpreted under a ‘strict constructionist theory.‘” PrinceGeorge‘s Cnty. v. Vieira, 340 Md. 651, 659, 667 A.2d 898 (1995) (citation omitted). Because I believe the Majority strays from these rules, I respectfully dissent.
The Majority finds that in
The Majority dismisses the Bottinis’ argument that a bank account is a form of intangible personal property under
In his dissent from the Court of Sрecial Appeals opinion, Judge Arthur concluded that a bank account is not money, but
The Majority‘s reading of the statute also renders bank accounts “functionally indistinguishable from other types of accounts that . . . clearly would not fall within the definition of ‘money.‘” Bottini, slip op. at 1 (Arthur, J., dissenting). As Judge Arthur observed in his dissent:
Many investment banks and brokerages offer money market funds, in which investors make deposits, earn interest,
Id. at 1-2. The Majority does not answer these questions, but instead оffers a strained interpretation of the forfeiture statute that renders the term “security” in
I recognize that the forfeiture statute is meant to prevent illegal drug manufacturers and distributors from enjoying the proceeds of their criminal enterprise. The Majority‘s opinion furthers this purpose. But, as the Court observed in Vieira, “the forfeiting authority is still required to follow the procedures prescribed by the statute, and these procedures should be strictly imposed to provide post seizure due process protection to the defendant.” 340 Md. at 659-60, 667 A.2d 898. My construction of the statute seeks to further the statute‘s purpose while requiring the forfeiting authority to adhere to the statute‘s prescribed procedures. It would still permit the forfeiting authority to seize a bank account, without any more burdensome procеdure—it simply sets a different deadline for filing its complaint for forfeiture.