- 15 -
since respondent failed to petition the court for a hearing to
adjudicate his rights in the laundered proceeds, the United
States gained clear title to the $2 million remittance, which the
Marshals Service collected. See 21 U.S.C. sec. 853(c), (n)(1),
(2), (7). The forfeiture order has neither been vacated by the
District Court, nor has the court’s decision to issue it been
reversed. Therefore, respondent, like this court, must respect
it. Moreover, respondent had no duty to challenge it.
B. Petitioner Cannot Challenge the Forfeiture Order
Petitioner errs in his understanding of that portion of 21
U.S.C. sec. 853(c) that embodies what is known as the “relation-
back doctrine”, according to which title of the United States to
forfeited property “relates back” to the time of commission of
the illegal act underlying the forfeiture. In pertinent part, 21
U.S.C. sec. 853(c) provides: “All right, title, and interest in
[the forfeited] property * * * vests in the United States upon
the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture”. Contrary
to petitioner’s belief, therefore, the date on which the District
Court orders the forfeiture is not the date on which the rights
of the United States arise. It is true that, until the order of
forfeiture is entered, the United States has no right to seize
the forfeited property, see 21 U.S.C. sec. 853(g), but, upon
entry of the order, the forfeiture relates back to the date of
the criminal act giving rise to the forfeiture. See, e.g.,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011