After the money is “seized” a certified letter is sent to “owner” stating the intent of the state to seize the money as either “proceeds” or “facilitation.” The owner can then state a claim to the cash. From that point forward the investigation continues. Under a civil forfeiture the money is the “suspect” Under a criminal forfeiture, the money is secondary to the underlying criminal offense.
Here we have a situation where there was a “robbery” or “burglary”; a “felonious assault” ( the stabbing of the son); and a “homicide” (the fatal shooting of a suspect.) We also have a drug violation (the marijuana) and over $400,000 in cash.
This isn’t going to be resolved overnight. The initial incident occurred in June, the story doesn’t say when the FBI seized control of the money. I would guess it would take a month or two for the police and the prosecutor to determine if any charges were going to be filed against the homeowner for the homicide. The article also didn’t say what the other perp may have said. Did the other guy intimate it was a drug deal gone bad?
There are too many questions that remain unanswered, but as to the heart of your question, it’s still possible for this guy to be charged at the Federal level. I can tell you from experience the TF cases can take a long time before charges ARE filed. The key to this is the money HASN’T been forfeited. As near as I can tell there has been no court order of forfeiture. The money has been “SEIZED.” A legal distinction sure, but the owner of the money hasn’t lost an interest or a claim to the funds unless or until the COURT ORDERS the forfeiture.
This story WAS written by someone who has no comprehension of how the forfeiture statutes work. Forfeiture is a valuable tool to remove the profit from crime. Most “horror” stories are from those who got their hands caught in the cookie jar.
Hope this helps and if not...tell me what I missed.
Have a great New Year.
I remember seeing a tv show, probably ‘60 minutes’, that told the story of a guy that had saved up and bought a plane or small jet and flew people for money, kind of an air taxi service.
One of his customers, unbeknownst to the pilot, had a suitcase full of drug cash and the authorities moved on the customer and seized the plane of the pilot as well.
They never prosecuted the pilot, but did charge the plane! I think I even saw a copy of the charging sheet (?): “US vs Cessna #....” or some such. They said the guy only had 30 days from the time of the seizure to contest it, else forfeit the property. The kicker was he also had to post a bond or something of 10% of the value of the plane, which the pilot didn’t have.
They never charged the pilot, but they kept the plane. And they dropped charges against the customer with the drug money!
Does that story ring a bell, and have I remembered it correctly? And if I have, did the feds do the right thing? Civil asset forfeiture of the plane, but no offense ("civil offense" ?) charged against the plane's owner?
Thank you for lending your personal experience to this thread. I hope you don't mind answering a few more simple questions just so I (and everyone else) can try to get the whole picture of what is going on. Can you please tell me whether the following points are correct or incorrect?
1. At this point, Mr. Ricks' has not permanently lost the money. His money has merely been seized. He will not lose it permanently until a court orders forfeiture. Correct?
2. To obtain the forfeiture order, the FBI will be required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the money represents the proceeds of criminal activities. The burden of proof will be on the FBI. Correct?
3. Mr. Ricks will be notified of this forfeiture hearing and will have a chance to produce evidence of his own showing that the money was merely his personal savings or was otherwise obtained innocently. Alternately, Mr. Ricks can remain silent and still win the money back if the FBI fails to meet its burden. Correct?
4. Mr. Ricks need not be charged with a crime to permanently lose the money through forfeiture. Since this process is defined as a "civil" procedure, the normal criminal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required. Correct?
If all of these statements are correct, this paints a very different picture than what is given in the article.