{
  "id": "RL30576",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30576",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101937,
      "date": "2000-06-02",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:36:19.551941",
      "title": "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000: Overview of Public Law 106-185",
      "summary": "Forfeiture has long provided both a deterrent against crime as well as a form of punishment for\nthe\ncriminal.  (1)  Federal confiscation procedures, however, were sometimes seen\nto be unfair. Public Law\nNo. 106-185, signed into law by President Clinton on April 25, 2000 is intended to make, federal\nforfeiture procedures more fair and yet more effective. The Act will raise the standards the\ngovernment must meet when it seeks to take property from private citizens suspected of drug\ntrafficking or other crimes. Some of the major changes made by the Act which were the result of\na compromise between a bipartisan group of legislators and Attorney General Janet Reno include:\n(1) raising the Government's standard of proof to one of preponderance of the evidence; (2)\nsupplying indigent defendants with legal representation in forfeiture cases if they already have\nappointed counsel in a related criminal case or had real property, such as a business or house, which\nwas seized by the Government; (3) expanding the innocent owner defense; (4) permitting property\nowners, in cases of substantial hardship, to maintain temporary custody of the property subject to a\nforfeiture contest; (5) allowing successful forfeiture claimants to recover interest and for damages\nto their property suffered while in Government possession; (6) empowering the courts to dismiss the\nforfeiture challenges of fugitive property claimants; (7) enlarging the Government's forfeiture\nauthority over the proceeds of a substantial number of crimes previously beyond its reach; (8)\nrecognizing the authority of the federal courts to enforce foreign forfeiture judgments; (9) allowing\nfederal prosecutors to share certain grand jury information for civil forfeiture purposes; and (10)\naffording the Government the option of proceeding under criminal forfeiture procedures in any\ninstance in which it might invoke civil forfeiture procedures.\n     1.  \u00a0 See H.  Rept. 106th-192, 106th Cong. 1st\nSess., at 5.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30576",
          "sha1": "56b087405d1132ad2f2cf3687b3d1a8b9d329fa3",
          "filename": "files/20000602_RL30576_56b087405d1132ad2f2cf3687b3d1a8b9d329fa3.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000602_RL30576_56b087405d1132ad2f2cf3687b3d1a8b9d329fa3.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}