Supreme Court Has a Chance to Rein in Civil Forfeiture

The Cato Institute has recently filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to address a significant issue in civil forfeiture law. In the 2017 case Honeycutt v. United States, the Court ruled that only individuals who personally profited from criminal activity could be held liable in forfeiture actions. However, the Department of Justice now contends that this ruling does not apply to "passthrough schemes," where a defendant transfers illicit funds to another party without retaining any profit. The Eleventh Circuit accepted this argument, allowing for joint and several liability in such cases.Cato's brief argues that this interpretation undermines constitutional principles of proportionality and due process, asserting that individuals who did not personally benefit should not be subjected to forfeiture. The Supreme Court's decision to review this case could have significant implications for the future of civil forfeiture practices.

Read the full article here.