Forfeiture

• Author: International Law Group

This interlocutory appeal arises out of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington's rejection of an importer's "innocent owner" defense in forfeiture proceedings brought by the U.S. to seize about 144,774 pounds of the importer's blue king crab. Two Russian vessels had harvested the crabs within the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Deep Sea Fisheries, Inc. (Deep Sea) later acquired the shipment but when it tried to import the crab into the U.S. at Blaine, Washington, U.S. Customs officials seized the shipment.

The United States brought the forfeiture action under the Lacey Act [16 U.S.C. Section 3372(a)(2)(A)]. The Act makes it unlawful for any person "to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce - any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law." The U.S. alleged that Deep Sea had taken, possessed, transported, and sold the crabs in violation of Russian fishing and resource- protection laws. Russian authorities backed these claims, declaring that, if the fishing vessels had captured the crabs in its EEZ without reporting their loading or transportation, they had contravened Russian law.

Deep Sea answered the complaint raising, inter alia, the "innocent ownership" defense under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C. Section 983(d). CAFRA provides that: "(1) An innocent owner's interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence."

"(2)(A) With respect to a property interest in existence at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture took place, the term 'innocent owner' means an owner who -- (I) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or (ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property."

The Government countered that Deep Sea could not invoke the "innocent owner" defense because CAFRA Section 983(d)(4) states that "no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess."

The district court granted partial summary judgment to the U.S. On interlocutory appeal, Deep Sea argued that CAFRA...