ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

18 U.S.C. § 987Anti-terrorist forfeiture protection

submitted 20 years ago by Pub. L. 109-177 to r/title-18-CRIMES-AND-CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE · 276 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This section lets an owner contest the confiscation of property under laws concerning suspected international terrorists by filing a claim and asserting specified defenses. It permits reliable otherwise inadmissible evidence when following the evidence rules could endanger national security, and preserves other remedies.

(a) Right to Contest. An owner of property confiscated under a law concerning the confiscation of assets of suspected international terrorists may contest the confiscation by filing a claim in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. The owner may assert as an affirmative defense that—(1) the property is not subject to confiscation under that law; or (2) the innocent-owner provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 983(d) apply to the case. (b) Evidence. In considering a claim filed under this section, a court may admit evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the court determines that the evidence is reliable and that following the Federal Rules of Evidence may jeopardize the national-security interests of the United States. (c) Clarifications.—(1) Protection of rights. Excluding certain federal-law provisions from the definition of “civil forfeiture statute” in 18 U.S.C. § 983(i) does not deny an owner of property the right to contest the confiscation of assets of suspected international terrorists under—(A) subsection (a) of this section; (B) the Constitution; or (C) subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, commonly known as the “Administrative Procedure Act.” (2) Savings clause. Nothing in this section limits or otherwise affects any other remedies that may be available to an owner of property under 18 U.S.C. § 983 or any other provision of law.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a)Right to Contest.—

An owner of property that is confiscated under any provision of law relating to the confiscation of assets of suspected international terrorists, may contest that confiscation by filing a claim in the manner set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims), and asserting as an affirmative defense that—

(1)

the property is not subject to confiscation under such provision of law; or

(2)

the innocent owner provisions of section 983(d) of title 18, United States Code, apply to the case.

(b)Evidence.—

In considering a claim filed under this section, a court may admit evidence that is otherwise inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, if the court determines that the evidence is reliable, and that compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence may jeopardize the national security interests of the United States.

(c)Clarifications.—
(1)Protection of rights.—

The exclusion of certain provisions of Federal law from the definition of the term “civil forfeiture statute” in section 983(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall not be construed to deny an owner of property the right to contest the confiscation of assets of suspected international terrorists under—

(A)

subsection (a) of this section;

(B)

the Constitution; or

(C)

subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the “Administrative Procedure Act”).

(2)Savings clause.—

Nothing in this section shall limit or otherwise affect any other remedies that may be available to an owner of property under section 983 of title 18, United States Code, or any other provision of law.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, § 406(b)(1)(B), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 244.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 2006Enacted · Pub. L. 109-177 · 120 Stat. 244

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 109-177 on 2006-03-09.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case