The conservative approach to criminal justice:
fighting crime, supporting victims, and protecting taxpayers.

Director of Right on Crime Discusses Civil Forfeiture, Madoff Scheme on Fox Business

| November 10, 2017

Right on Crime’s Director Derek Cohen went on air with Fox Business last night in response to the DOJ’s announcement that it had used civil asset forfeiture to capture ill-gotten gains from the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme—in an effort to restitute victims of his crimes. While victim restitution is among the worthy goals of asset forfeiture, experience has shown that asset forfeiture laws have cast a dangerously broad net that allows government agencies to seize and repurpose cash and other assets from innocent Americans as well—often without any convictions, or even an arrest.

A recent Wall Street Journal article justified the use of civil forfeiture in Madoff’s case, stating that there exist multiple layers of “judicial protection” to insulate innocent property owners from any abuses. There are difficulties with this line of argument, however. First, despite the fact that civil forfeiture was used to seize assets possessed by third-parties, not Madoff himself, those assets were already found to be “tainted”—or the fruit of illegality—by a court when they convicted Madoff of his crimes. In other words, it’s that conviction which justified government to seize assets proven to have a nexus to illegal behavior—a connection that isn’t procedurally established in most other civil forfeiture cases. Ultimately, Bernie Madoff’s case isn’t an argument for civil forfeiture; it’s that forfeiture was used legitimately here given his criminal conviction.

Cohen provided a second rejoinder in his comments, stating that a recent report from the DOJ’s own inspector general found that most cash seizures—over 80%—performed by the DEA and other agencies which resulted in forfeiture were done administratively, which don’t require judicial involvement whatsoever. Because the value of most assets seized and forfeited are often far less than the cost of mounting a legal fight, most people don’t bother. While it isn’t surprising that a bona fide criminal wouldn’t contest such forfeitures, the flip side is that the cards are well-stacked against any innocent owner who wishes to fight back in such situations. These uncontested forfeitures therefore end in default judgments, which amount to little more than an administrative rubber stamp. Approximately $3.2 billion was seized by the DEA alone between 2007-2016 using this process. The fact of the matter is that the genuine “judicial protections” which citizens may avail themselves of in criminal court don’t exist in civil forfeiture cases, and therein lies the rub.

To watch Cohen’s full comments, click below:


MICHAEL HAUGEN is a policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and its Right on Crime initiative.

His work for the Foundation has focused primarily on criminal justice reform topics, particularly civil forfeiture, prison reform and justice reinvestment, mens rea reform, occupational licensing, and various law enforcement and privacy issues. He’s also written about federal corporate subsidies, school choice, and gun rights.

Haugen is a graduate of Eastern Washington University, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology with Pre-Medicine Option, and a minor in Chemistry. He also holds an Associate of Arts degree in General Studies from North Idaho College. At EWU, he participated in academic research in a molecular microbiology laboratory for two years, investigating genetic virulence factors and pathophysiology in microbes.

His writing has appeared in National Review, The Hill, Townhall, Washington Examiner, Dallas Morning News, El Paso Times, Trib Talk, RedState, Ricochet, and Breitbart Texas.