The recent news that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is disbanding its crypto unit and shifting focus from prosecuting platforms to targeting individuals who harm crypto investors or use digital assets for illegal activities may be seen as a sign of a significant sea change in the Government’s “regulation by prosecution” approach to financial crimes. Very often, criminal prosecution in the securities, health care, and cryptocurrency arenas is focused on violations of complex and often opaque regulations, which is why such prosecutions very often emerge alongside parallel civil investigations. Criminal defendants and their attorneys have decried the Government’s blunt force approach to criminalizing what are essentially regulatory violations using the incredibly broad federal statutes for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341); wire fraud,18 U.S.C. 1343); healthcare fraud (18 U.S.C. 1347); securities and commodities fraud (18 U.S.C. 1348), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1040).

Likely, this move by the DOJ does not signal a looming retreat from such prosecutions, but instead represents a more targeted effort to promote innovation in the ever-developing digital currency platforms in alignment with President Trump’s Executive Order on digital assets. The end result is that the DOJ will no longer pursue actions that impose regulatory frameworks on digital platforms, leaving this instead to President Trump’s regulators. The DOJ will prioritize cases involving misappropriation of funds, scams, and hacks with the stated goal of protecting investors and building market confidence and will continue to target crypto use by criminal organizations.

Under this new policy, prosecutors are advised against charging regulatory violations unless there is evidence of willful misconduct (criminal intent), which really seems to be restating what should have been policy all along. Importantly, the DOJ will avoid litigating whether a digital asset is a security or commodity (a retreat from the Biden era’s position), preferring charges like wire fraud, but may consider bitcoin and ether as commodities. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is adopting a similar approach, as directed by Acting Chair Caroline Pham deprioritizing registration violation actions unless there is evidence of willful non-compliance.

It is important if you are being investigated or charged with fraud to hire an attorney who has vast experience with white-collar federal criminal investigations and prosecutions. Often, early intervention in a case may prevent charges from ever being filed. Given the complexity of the federal regulations applicable to many industries, from health care to securities to banking, and the incredibly broad federal statutes that can be used to transform an investigation into a criminal case, you need to make sure that the attorney you hire has a practice that is primarily federal, with an in-depth understanding of the criminal statutes, the sentencing guidelines (driven by loss amounts and enhancements that can result in draconian sentences); federal forfeiture statutes, and restitution.

At Stahl Gasiorowski, partners Laura K. Gasiorowski and Robert Stahl have over 65 combined years of experience representing federal criminal defendants in the District of New Jersey, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and in other federal courts across the United States. We have represented individuals and start-up platforms involving unregulated money transfer businesses, rug pulls, NFTs, material misrepresentations, and the use of paid celebrities and sport figures in marketing.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented hundreds of individuals and companies subpoenaed by federal and state authorities. We have the experience and skills to effectively navigate our clients through these complex issues and investigations to achieve the best possible outcome. If you are looking for a crypto fraud lawyer,wire fraud lawyer, securities fraud lawyer or healthcare fraud lawyer, contact Mr. Stahl or Ms. Gasiorowski, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office or 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com or Ms. Gasiowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com.

In a rare opinion addressing the rights of innocent owners of property seized under state civil forfeiture laws, the Supreme Court of the United States held that innocent owners are not constitutionally entitled to a separate preliminary hearing to seek a speedy return of their seized property. The 6-3 ruling in Culley v. Marshall, published on Thursday, May 9, 2024, found that Alabama’s civil forfeiture procedures provided sufficient due process and timeliness, even as a majority of justices voiced grave concerns about the potential for abuse of state civil forfeiture statutes, generally.

What is Civil Forfeiture?

Civil forfeiture refers to a legal process by which law enforcement officers can seize assets and property that they allege are involved in a crime or were purchased with proceeds from criminal conduct. This can include cash, cars, real estate, and other valuables.

The main idea behind civil forfeiture laws is to disrupt criminal enterprises by taking away their ill-gotten gains. However, civil forfeiture laws have been controversial because:

1. Property can be seized based on mere suspicion of being connected to a crime, without the owner being charged or convicted.
2. The burden of proof is on the property owner to prove their innocence and establish they acquired the assets legitimately to get them returned.
3. Law enforcement agencies get to keep forfeited assets or proceeds from their sale, creating a perceived profit motive.
4. Civil liberties advocates argue the laws violate due process and property rights protections.

Critics contend civil forfeiture incentivizes policing for profit over fighting crime. Defenders view it as a necessary tool against criminal organizations. There have been reform efforts but civil forfeiture remains legally permissible under federal law and laws in many states.

The Case and the Court’s Holding

The case centered on a challenge brought by Halima Tariffa Culley and Lena Sutton, whose cars were seized by Alabama law enforcement after allegedly being used to facilitate drug crimes (including on case involving the mere simple possession of marijuana) by others who had borrowed the vehicles. Alabama state law permits the seizure of a car used to “commit or facilitate” a drug crime if the car is seized “incident to an arrest” as long as the state promptly initiates a forfeiture case. In the case of Culley and Sutton, the State of Alabama filed civil forfeiture complaints against Culley’s and Sutton’s cars within 10 and 13 days of seizure, but litigation continued for months after seizure. While the cases were pending, Culley and Sutton filed class-action complaints in federal court, alleging that their due process rights were violated because their cars were retained during the forfeiture process without speedy preliminary hearings at which to demonstrate their status as “innocent owners.”

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Culley and Sutton’s claims, finding that a timely forfeiture hearing provided sufficient due process and that a separate preliminary hearing was not required. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court held that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause does not require courts to hold a separate preliminary hearing to allow property owners to quickly assert an innocent owner defense and seek an early return of their seized assets. The Court reasoned that prior Supreme Court precedent – United States v. $8,850 and United States v. Von Neumann – already requires a “timely post-seizure forfeiture hearing,” and that this satisfies the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Dissent Raises Alarm Over Abuses

The Court’s three liberal justices issued a scathing dissent, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, decrying the lack of safeguards in civil forfeiture schemes and the perverse financial incentives they create for law enforcement agencies. Sotomayor warned that these systems encourage the seizure of valuable property, even tangentially related to alleged crimes, and then subject owners to “labyrinthine processes” making it difficult and costly to recover their belongings.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, who concurred in the judgment, echoed similar concerns in a separate opinion, questioning whether contemporary civil forfeiture practices align with the nation’s historical insistence on due process protections against government overreach. The concurring opinion highlighted the potential abuses and injustices associated with civil forfeiture, including the financial incentives for law enforcement agencies, the burden on innocent property owners, and the lack of uniform procedural safeguards.

A Call for Reform?

While the Supreme Court’s ruling cemented the constitutionality of Alabama’s procedures, the strong voices of dissent signal that a majority of the Justices may be open to re-evaluating civil forfeiture schemes in a future case. The dissent highlights disturbing data on how these systems disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities least able to navigate the costly processes to reclaim seized property. As Justice Gorsuch provocatively suggested, even conservative justices are questioning whether it is “past time” to undertake a deeper examination of whether civil forfeiture regimes have strayed too far from constitutional principles safeguarding private property rights. This decision could embolden reform efforts by state legislators concerned about civil liberties violations and seeking to implement greater due process protections.

In the meantime, innocent property owners nationwide must continue to navigate the complex patchwork of byzantine state and federal civil forfeiture laws when property is seized under the theory the property was used to facilitate crime. But a majority of the Supreme Court has put the legal community on notice about the potential injustices arising from unfettered government seizure and forfeiture powers.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys are experienced in defending civil and criminal forfeitures in state and federal courts. The firm attorneys defend individuals charged with various criminal offenses, including Business Fraud, Healthcare Fraud, Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, Mortgage Fraud, Tax Fraud, Securities Fraud, Wire and Mail Fraud, Theft/Embezzlement, Falsifying Documents, Money Laundering, Internet Crimes, RICO Racketeering, Domestic Violence, as well as Drug Crimes and Trafficking. To contact us call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com, Laura K. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Andrew Olesnycky at ao@sgdefenselaw.com.

When facing the formidable gears of the federal justice system, individuals accused of bribery and extortion are immediately thrust into a complex legal arena where the stakes couldn’t be higher. These white-collar crimes carry severe penalties, including hefty fines and significant prison time. In such high-stress, high-stakes situations, securing an experienced criminal defense attorney is not just a strategic move—it’s an absolute necessity.

Understanding the Grave Nature of Federal Charges

Bribery and extortion are federal offenses characterized by an abuse of power or position. Bribery involves offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of their legal duties. Extortion, on the other hand, refers to obtaining something of value through coercion. It is critical for defendants to understand that the mere accusation carries with it a social stigma that can tarnish reputations and careers irreparably.

The Defense You Deserve: The Role of Your Attorney

The law surrounding federal bribery and extortion is complex, with numerous statutes and regulations in play. It is extremely important to hire a criminal defense attorney with experience in federal criminal defense to navigate this labyrinthine legal landscape effectively. Federal court procedures, plea negotiations and trials can vary significantly from those of state courts, with their own discovery rules, rules of evidence, pleading standards, and judicial practices. Federal prosecutions are often much more complex than state proceedings, and also involve equally complicated forfeiture and restitution issues that require the assistance of an experienced federal practitioner. At Stahl Gasiorowski, our practice is solely devoted to criminal defense, and partners Robert G. Stahl, a former Assistant United States Attorney, and Laura K. Gasiorowski have more than sixty years’ experience in federal criminal defense between them.

Strategic Defense Planning

Every piece of evidence and every statement made in the context of these charges can profoundly impact the outcome of a case. Partners Robert Stahl and Laura Gasiorowski work diligently to evaluate the prosecution’s evidence and to develop strategies that can counteract the government’s case, utilizing skilled investigators and top notch expert witnesses where necessary.

In cases where evidence is substantial and our client wants to plead, Stahl Gasiorowski will work to secure a plea deal that limits the client’s sentencing exposure and the fines and restitution payments. Where the client may have a factual or legal defense, or insists on exercising her constitutional right to a trial, we use an aggressive pretrial motion practice, investigation and meticulous preparation to mount a defense for trial. Our years of experience mean that we can advise you on the risks and benefits of a plea or trial, and assist you in making the best decision for yourself and your family.

Perhaps most importantly, we ensure that all of your constitutional rights are protected throughout the legal process. Our skilled attorneys are a buffer against potential overreach by prosecutors and work to ensure that you receive a fair trial and the most zealous and aggressive defense possible.

If you or someone you know has been charged with federal bribery or extortion, the time to secure a defense attorney is immediately upon suspicion or accusation. Early legal intervention can be pivotal as it allows for preparation time and the possibility of engaging with federal investigators on your behalf before charges are formally filed.

The complexities of federal bribery and extortion charges demand a defense that is sophisticated, tactical, and rooted in comprehensive legal knowledge. The intervention of a criminal defense attorney is integral in safeguarding rights, securing fair treatment under the law, and ensuring that the defendant’s side of the story is heard. Do not underestimate the gravity of federal criminal charges—invest in the defense you unquestionably need.

For expert legal assistance and a defense that leaves no stone unturned, reach out to Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense where our unwavering commitment to our clients is matched only by our deep understanding of federal criminal law.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and offer big law skills at boutique firm prices. To contact us call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com or Laura K. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com.

Last fall Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the Department of Justice’s more aggressive approach to corporate compliance. In her policy speech this week, she highlighted a series of new policies and warned cooperating companies not to slow walk their disclosures, told prosecutors to speed up their investigations and expanded self-reporting programs throughout the Department.

Of note, Monaco acknowledged the past year’s decline in corporate prosecutions. In an effort to assist prosecutors’ timely investigations of individuals, Monaco said that any company that delays in turning over key documents and information to the government will risk losing some or all credit for cooperating. While companies are already required to turn over non-privileged information about employee wrongdoing in order to receive cooperation credit, Monaco said that the DOJ would view companies more favorably that claw back compensation from those employees. In her view, such a policy could deter wrongdoing — “compensation systems that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can deter risky behavior and foster a culture of compliance.”

Recidivist corporate offenders, even for unrelated prior misconduct, were warned that any prior violations would factor into DOJ’s treatment of new offenses. But, in an attempt to assuage corporate anxiety about prior misdeeds that resulted in either civil fines or criminal pleas, Monaco said that criminal resolutions more than 10 years old, and civil or regulatory settlements more than 5 years old, would be given less weight.

Lastly, Monaco said that every section of DOJ that prosecutes corporate crime will develop an individualized program to incentivize corporate self-disclosure. The common principles for these programs will include foregoing guilty pleas when the company self-reports, cooperates and remediates the misconduct. Further, monitorships, while back in favor and to be freely implemented when appropriate, will be circumscribed when the above requirements have been met. Prosecutors will be tasked, however, with making sure that the monitors are performing properly and stay on budget.

Federal investigations and prosecutions of corporations and individual employees and officers are complex and time consuming. There are a variety of factors that must be considered to properly defend the company and its employees while conducting an independent investigation of the alleged wrongdoing. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing individuals and corporations accused of fraud. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

A recent high profile case highlights the federal government’s ability to seize a convicted defendant’s accounts to satisfy an Order of Restitution after a conviction at trial or a guilty plea. The Second Circuit recently held that the retirement funds of Evan Greebel, the former convicted attorney and Martin Shkreli’s codefendant, could be seized in partial satisfaction of the restitution amount owed. Greebel was convicted in a separate 2017 trial for assisting his client Shkreli’s fraudulent taking of funds from Retrophin to pay Shkreli’s hedge fund debts, and for manipulating the stock price of Shkreli’s drug company. After conviction, Greebel was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $10.4 million in restitution.

In its opinion, the Second Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision that Greebel’s 401(k) accounts at his former law firm were subject to garnishment in an effort to collect the restitution amount. The Second Circuit held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) gives the government full access to retirement funds, and that ERISA’s prohibition on disbursing retirement funds to third parties is trumped by the MVRA.

It is well-established that under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A), the Government may enforce a restitution order in the manner provided by subchapter B of Chapter 229, or 18 U.S.C. § 3613. An order of restitution may be executed in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under federal law or state law or by all other available and reasonable means. 18 U.S.C. § 3613 (a) and (f).

The MVRA broadly permits the United States to enforce a restitution order “against all property or rights to property of the person fined.” Pursuant to §3613(c), once restitution is ordered, all the defendant’s property becomes subject to a lien in favor of the United States, and for purposes of debt collection, such lien is treated like a tax lien. §3613(c). Thus, any property the IRS can reach to satisfy a tax lien, a sentencing court can also reach in a restitution order – bank accounts, retirement funds, stock accounts and even Social Security benefits. Additionally, while periodic payments (usually monthly payments through the Probation Department) in satisfaction of a restitution order are limited to 25% of the defendant’s disposable income, one time lump sums payments, such as the garnishment of a retirement or bank account, are not limited.

The only issue left unanswered by the Second Circuit in Greebel was whether the government could seize all the funds, or whether it had to leave the defendant sufficient funds to pay the 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal of retirement funds. In many instances, the amount left to a defendant to pay tax penalties and taxes on garnishment of retirement accounts can be negotiated with the government.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented scores of clients facing restitution and forfeiture orders and garnishments. We actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

When someone pleads guilty or is convicted of a federal or state crime, there are serious collateral consequences, in addition to potential jail time, forfeiture, restitution and other fines and penalties. The term ‘‘collateral consequence’’ means a collateral sanction or a disqualification, a penalty, disability, or disadvantage that is imposed by law as a result of an individual’s conviction for a felony, misdemeanor, or other offense, but not as part of the judgment of the court. Collateral consequences are legal and regulatory restrictions that limit or prohibit people convicted of crimes from:

• Accessing employment
• Business and occupational licensing
• Housing
• Voting
• Possession of firearms and hunting licenses
• Education
• Military service

A federal conviction results in the loss of the right to:

• Vote,
• Possess firearms,
• Sit on a jury
• and may result in travel bans from many countries.

Depending on the type of crime, the person’s professional license may be suspended, or the person may be banned or debarred from certain federal programs for a period of years.

There are more than 45,000 state and local laws and regulations that have profound ramifications for those with criminal records. Roughly 600,000 people leave prisons every year hoping that their punishment has ended, only to encounter a combination of laws, rules, and biases forming barriers that block them from jobs, housing, and fundamental participation in our political, economic, and cultural life. These collateral consequences illustrate the excessively retributive nature of our criminal justice system.

Currently, 30 states disenfranchise at least some people based on past conviction. Some collateral consequences serve a legitimate public safety or regulatory function, such as keeping firearms out of the hands of people convicted of violent offenses, prohibiting people convicted of assault or physical abuse from working with children or the elderly, or barring people convicted of fraud from positions of public trust. Others are directly related to a particular crime, such as registration requirements for sex offenders or driver’s license restrictions for people convicted of serious traffic offenses. But some collateral consequences apply without regard to the relationship between the crime and opportunity being restricted, such as the revocation of a business license after conviction of any felony.

These consequences create social and economic barriers for individuals reentering society by denying or restricting benefits otherwise available to all Americans. Collateral consequences can also adversely affect adoptions, housing, welfare, immigration, employment, professional licensure, property rights, mobility, and other opportunities. The effects of such restrictions often increase recidivism and undermines meaningful reentry.

Despite these sweeping adverse consequences, defendants are generally not entitled, as a matter of due process, to be warned of these consequences, either before accepting a plea or upon conviction. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has required consideration of certain immigration effects of a criminal conviction, the Court left open what other disenfranchisements might rise to the level requiring constitutional protection.

The attorneys at Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense advise all of our clients of the potential collateral consequences of their plea or conviction. We routinely represent licensed professionals that may face parallel administrative actions or hearings seeking to suspend their license based upon the criminal investigation or charges

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience in serious federal and state criminal cases. The founder of the firm, Robert Stahl, is a Certified Criminal Trial Attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who tried some of the largest fraud and tax cases in the District of New Jersey. He has been aggressively defending serious cases in federal and state courts for more than 25 years.

Chief Financial Officers, Account Managers and bookkeepers all, to vary degrees, are trusted employees who have access to corporate funds. Access to company funds, with little or sporadic oversight, can leave a company vulnerable to a variety of fraudulent schemes to obtain funds those employees were not entitled to. Common schemes include:

1. The trusted employee setting up fictitious companies as suppliers of goods and materials and creating false invoices for payment.
2. Another scenario involves the trusted employee engaging in a kickback scheme with an actual outside vendor/supplier to inflate invoices and “kick back” a percentage of the funds received from the company.
3. Other schemes simply involve a trusted employee giving themselves bonuses and other unauthorized forms of compensation.

These schemes can go undetected for years and often result in the loss of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. They are usually detected when the company experiences a significant downturn in revenue, a verified audit, or the potential sale of the company requiring a close examination of the books and records.

When such schemes are discovered, the employer or counsel will usually retain a forensic accountant to uncover the extent of the fraud. Counsel will often advise the employer to confront the employee and convince them to pay back as much of the stolen funds as possible before notifying law enforcement. The employer may lead the employee to believe that they want to work with them to recover the funds and to make the company as whole as possible without the need for attorneys, litigation or law enforcement. Many employers will suggest that the employee “cooperate” and voluntarily turn over their retirement funds, monies in their family checking and savings accounts, and sell their home and other valuables in order to pay back the funds that were improperly taken.

What an employee needs to know is that they should first retain experienced criminal defense counsel to assist them throughout this complicated process. This is critical for a number of reasons.

First, anything the employee says to the employer or their counsel is likely an admission against interest and can be used in a future criminal prosecution.

Second, the employee needs the advice of counsel about the potential benefits versus risks of acknowledging the theft and the repayment of all or part of the monies taken prior to any potential criminal case.

Third, the employee needs their own attorney to deal with the employer to make sure that any monies repaid are handled correctly and that retirement funds are not simply liquidated without sufficient funds remaining to pay the interest and penalties usually due for early withdrawal.

Fourth, despite any conversations or assurances that law enforcement will not be contacted if the employee returns the funds, there is nothing that can bind an employer to such a promise. Any assurance not to report is against public policy and unenforceable as a matter of law.

Seizure of bank accounts, assets and real property through civil litigation is a very time consuming and costly endeavor. Once law enforcement is involved, prosecutors are more focused on the criminal charges, while restitution and forfeiture are a secondary concern. Consequently, most employers try to recover as much money as they can before notifying law enforcement. It is much easier for the company to recover funds with the cooperation of the former employee. Thus, it is critical for the employee to retain experienced criminal defense counsel at the outset.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all your criminal legal needs. We are experienced in all types of complex criminal matters involving a many types of electronic evidence. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Police and prosecutors around the country routinely seize and forfeit cars, boats, money, computers, guns and homes that were “used in, or facilitated, the criminal activity charged.” While many cases involve significant crimes and the forfeitures are justified, too often the person is charged with fairly low-level drug sales and their car is seized if it was used to transport the drugs during the sales. The federal and state governments argue that forfeitures are simply part of the cost of the criminal’s conduct and work as a separate fine on the illegal activity. These fines and forfeitures are often used to supplement local and state budgets, including those of the very agencies that seized and forfeited the property.

The problem is that these forfeitures may be grossly excessive to the criminal activity charged. A case now before the U.S. Supreme Court involves low-level drug sales to support the person’s own drug habit and the seizure of his $42,000 Land Rover Discovery. In Timbs v. Indiana, the defendant pled to one count of dealing and one other count. He was sentenced to a year of home detention, five years of probation, and $1,200 in fines and court costs. In a separate civil forfeiture proceeding, the State sought to forfeit his expensive Land Rover as it was used in the commission of the crime. The trial and appellate courts held that the forfeiture was excessive, disproportionate to even the maximum fine of $10,000 under the drug statute. The Indiana Supreme Court, however, reversed and permitted the forfeiture. The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether the excessive fines clause in the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

While this decision will ultimately come down to constitutional interpretation, the everyday implications are far reaching. Cars are a huge expense and something that many people work long and hard to purchase, both as necessary transportation and the pleasure of owning a nice, reliable car. Every day throughout New Jersey and elsewhere, local and state law enforcement seize cars they allege were used in or facilitated the criminal activity – whether that consists of relatively minor drug sales, transportation of stolen property or other crimes involving the “use” of the car. The person charged may be admitted into a pretrial diversion program or receive probation and a minor fine, and yet, the government may still proceed to forfeit their car civilly in rem, or as part of the criminal sentence. That forfeiture may be grossly disproportionate to the underlying criminal charges and used as leverage to get the better plea deal in the criminal case.

After battling with county prosecutors’ offices for the information, the ACLU in New Jersey compiled five months of data, from January through May 2016, and found that police departments in New Jersey seized $5.5 million in cash in 1,860 cases over that time period, roughly $368,000 per day, along with 234 cars and, in one case, a house. Once police officers seized the suspects’ money, it was rare for them to see it again. Only 50 cases in the data were even contested by the suspects.

In a number of cases, the government may negotiate an amount of money to be paid for the return of the car. They may negotiate an amount of money for the return of the vehicle, or items seized, allegedly to cover the costs of the forfeiture, or as some additional penalty. When the person is faced with additional legal costs to defend against the forfeiture, often in a civil proceeding where the state’s burden of proof is less than in a criminal case, they often decide to “cut their losses” and settle for a lesser dollar amount. As one can easily surmise, these types of actions can and do lead to abuse and misuse of forfeiture to fund the seizing agency and the local and county budgets.

Experienced criminal defense counsel is an absolute must for these types of seizures and forfeitures. Forfeitures can be justified under the law, or they can be grossly disproportionate to the crimes charged and misused by the prosecution.

Robert Stahl, and his firm, Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact the firm, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

On December 19, 2016, the New Jersey Assembly and Senate unanimously passed a much-needed civil forfeiture reporting bill that, if signed into law by Governor Christie, would shed light on a much-criticized practice in which law enforcement agencies reap huge profits by seizing property “connected” to criminal activity, even in cases where no one has been charged with or found guilty of a crime.

The new bill, S-2267, would require every New Jersey county prosecutor to compile and submit an annual report to the Attorney General detailing how much money or property was seized, how it was connected to an alleged crime, whether the person from whom the property was seized was represented by a lawyer in the forfeiture proceeding, and how the forfeited profits were ultimately utilized by law enforcement. Though the bill does not call for any substantive reforms to New Jersey’s forfeiture laws, it will gather valuable data about an opaque process in dire need of reform, so that legislators will be armed with the facts necessary to push through meaningful legislation that is bound to be opposed by law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

The use of civil forfeiture has exploded in recent years across the United States. The Institute of Justice reported that since 2001 to 2014, annual federal forfeiture revenue increased from less than $500 million to more than $5 billion. And that is just federal forfeiture revenue. New Jersey law enforcement authorities routinely request forfeiture of all the cash carried by a person upon arrest, and any items suspected of having been used in a crime or purchased with the proceeds of crime, but due to the absence of reporting laws, the precise scope of New Jersey’s civil forfeiture industry is unclear.

Civil forfeiture is based upon the premise that criminals should not profit from unlawful activity. While this may be a laudable goal, the laws governing civil forfeiture have been drafted in a way that gives law enforcement huge legal and monetary advantages over the persons whose property is seized, making it difficult and prohibitively expensive for innocent owners to defend civil forfeiture cases. At the same time, civil forfeiture laws allow the agency that conducts the seizure to reap the profits from the seizure, creating a perverse incentive to seize first, and ask questions later.

Under New Jersey civil forfeiture laws, one need not be suspected of having committed a crime to have one’s property seized. If, for example, an innocent party lends a car to a person who is arrested purchasing narcotics in that car, police can seize the car and require the owner to prove, in court, that she did not have a reason to believe the car would be used in a drug deal. Unfortunately for the innocent owner, the cost of defending the civil forfeiture suit may exceed the value of the car, and it is the owner, not the State, who bears the burden of proving her own innocence. And because civil forfeiture is civil in nature, the owner does not have a constitutionally-protected right to an attorney. In many cases, the owner will simply pay a “settlement” to get her own property back, because the cost of proving her innocence exceeds the cost of the property. In one widely-publicized case, Jersey City resident Jermaine Mitchell was allegedly charged $175 in court fees to get back $171 seized during an April arrest.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals whose property has been seized under New Jersey and federal forfeiture laws. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office, or email us at rstahl@stahlesq.com.