NCJ Number
174881
Journal
Journal of Financial Crime Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Dated: October 1997 Pages: 111-129
Date Published
1997
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This paper analyzes the history and development of the law used by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in United States v. All Funds (1996), the rationale of the court, and the implications of the final holding.
Abstract
In "All Funds" the U.S. Court joined with courts in the United Kingdom to remove targeted profits from the illicit marketplace. The case involved successful seizure, "in rem," of illicit funds, even though the claimants had never been in the jurisdiction and the money would, at best, travel through the jurisdiction on its way to destinations unknown. "All Funds" was more than just another seizure of a bank account that was linked to narcotics. The bank accounts in question were located in London. There was no significant criminal activity that occurred in the Eastern District of New York (the jurisdiction of the trial court). "All Funds" directly addresses the issue of whether the U.S. Federal courts have "in rem" jurisdiction over property located outside the United States. The decision is significant for law enforcement; it lessens the handicap under which agents operate in their efforts to interdict illegal narcotics activity and other violations of domestic law that give rise to international asset forfeitures. Under "All Funds" the nationwide service or process provisions of 28 USC, Section 1355(d) now extend to foreign countries. The only remaining requirement is that the court must find that it has actual or constructive control over the "res." The requirements for the level and scope of action by the foreign government that must necessarily be demonstrated to meet the actual or constructive control requirement remain to be defined. Treaties and executive agreements that are used to secure foreign cooperation are typically reciprocal. 190 references