When the Government Took Our Client’s Cash Without Charges: How Persistence Forced the Return of Wrongfully Seized Funds

By Biazzo Law – Civil Trial and Constitutional Litigation Attorneys

One of the most fundamental protections in the United States Constitution is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It guarantees that the government cannot deprive someone of property without proper legal process.

Yet across the United States, federal civil asset forfeiture laws allow government agencies to seize cash and property without ever charging the owner with a crime.

In a recent case handled by Biazzo Law, our client learned firsthand how devastating that process can be. A large sum of cash was seized by federal authorities during an encounter where our client was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No criminal charges were ever filed.

No conviction was ever obtained.

But the government still held onto the funds for more than a year—until our firm stepped in and fought to get them returned.

Ultimately, after persistent legal pressure and constitutional advocacy, the government agreed to release all of the seized funds back to our client.

Civil Asset Forfeiture: When the Government Takes Property Without Charges

Civil asset forfeiture is a controversial legal process that allows law enforcement agencies to seize property they believe is connected to illegal activity.

Unlike criminal cases, forfeiture actions are technically brought against the property itself, not the individual owner.

This means that:

• The owner does not need to be convicted of a crime

• In many cases, the owner is never charged with a crime

• The burden often shifts to the property owner to prove the property was lawfully obtained

For ordinary citizens, this process can feel like guilty until proven innocent.

And that is exactly what happened in the case our firm handled.

The Seizure: Cash Taken Without Criminal Charges

According to official seizure records, federal authorities confiscated U.S. currency during an encounter in South Carolina. The government later issued a Notice of Seizure and Information to Claimants under CAFRA (Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act) informing the property owner that the money had been seized and could be subject to forfeiture proceedings.

The notice explained that the property had allegedly been seized under federal statutes related to proceeds of unlawful activity.

However, there was a major problem.

Our client had not been charged with any crime.

In fact, the client had a legitimate explanation for the funds and a legitimate reason for possessing cash.

Many Americans—particularly those who operate in cash-based businesses or prefer to use cash for personal reasons—carry significant amounts of currency.

But carrying cash is not illegal.

Despite this, the government held onto the funds and initiated forfeiture proceedings.

A Year Passes Without Resolution

After the seizure, months went by without resolution.

Our client faced the frustrating reality that many property owners encounter in forfeiture cases:

• Limited communication from authorities

• Complex administrative procedures

• Strict deadlines and technical filing requirements

• A system designed to make recovery difficult

Without legal representation, many people simply give up.

But our client chose a different path.

Biazzo Law Intervenes

After being retained, our firm immediately began investigating the seizure and preparing a formal claim.

Our goal was simple:

Force the government to justify the seizure—or return the money.

Under federal forfeiture law, property owners have the right to contest a seizure and request judicial review.

We exercised that right.

A formal claim was submitted to federal authorities asserting our client’s ownership of the seized property and requesting judicial action regarding the forfeiture.

The claim made it clear that:

• The funds belonged to our client

• The seizure lacked sufficient legal basis

• The government had no criminal charges to support forfeiture

Once the claim was filed, the government was required to review the matter and determine whether it could actually prove that the funds were connected to illegal activity.

Communication With Federal Counsel

As the claim process moved forward, our office began communicating directly with government attorneys handling the matter.

Emails from the Office of Assistant Chief Counsel for U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirm that government counsel contacted our office to discuss the case and request additional documentation during the review process.

This is a critical phase in forfeiture litigation.

Once an attorney becomes involved and challenges the seizure, the government must evaluate whether it has sufficient evidence to justify keeping the property.

In this case, the facts told a very different story than the one implied by the seizure.

The Constitutional Issue: The Fifth Amendment

At the heart of this case was a fundamental constitutional principle.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

When the government seizes property without charging the owner with a crime—and then holds that property for extended periods without meaningful judicial review—serious due process concerns arise.

In our client’s case:

• The funds were seized

• No criminal charges were filed

• The property remained in government custody for over a year

This is exactly the type of scenario that raises constitutional due process concerns.

Our firm made it clear that we were prepared to pursue every available legal remedy to protect our client’s constitutional rights.

The Government Reconsiders

After reviewing the claim and the evidence presented by our firm, federal authorities ultimately reached a decision.

In a formal letter to our office, the government confirmed that it had decided to release the seized property back to our client.

The letter explained that the funds would be remitted to our client once the necessary administrative paperwork was completed.

To finalize the return, our client executed a hold harmless agreement and provided the required payment processing documentation so the government could transfer the funds.

After more than a year of uncertainty, the funds were finally returned.

Why This Case Matters

Cases like this highlight an uncomfortable truth about civil forfeiture in the United States.

Even when someone has done nothing wrong, recovering seized property can take:

• months

• years

• legal intervention

Many people simply do not have the resources or knowledge required to fight the government.

Without experienced legal representation, property owners may never see their money again.

This case demonstrates the importance of having a lawyer who is willing to challenge improper government action.

The Power of Persistence in Constitutional Litigation

One of the defining factors in this case was persistence.

Recovering seized property required:

• filing formal claims

• communicating with federal counsel

• documenting the lawful source of funds

• asserting constitutional protections

The government does not always reverse course quickly.

But when confronted with strong legal arguments and a clear factual record, the law still works.

In this case, persistence ultimately forced the return of funds that should never have been taken in the first place.

Civil Forfeiture Defense in Federal Cases

Civil asset forfeiture cases often involve agencies such as:

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection

• Homeland Security Investigations

• DEA

• FBI

These cases can arise from:

• airport encounters

• roadside stops

• investigations involving suspected financial crimes

• mistaken identity situations

Because forfeiture cases operate under unique federal procedures, it is essential to work with a lawyer who understands both federal litigation and constitutional law.

Biazzo Law: Fighting for Property Rights and Constitutional Protections

At Biazzo Law, we represent clients in complex civil litigation and constitutional matters across the United States.

Our practice includes:

• federal civil litigation

• asset forfeiture defense

• constitutional rights litigation

• complex civil trial advocacy

We believe that government power must always be balanced by constitutional protections.

When those protections are violated, we step in to defend our clients’ rights.

If you would like to learn more about our litigation practice, visit our page for Charlotte civil trial representation here:

👉 https://www.biazzolaw.com/charlotteciviltriallawer

When the Government Takes Property, You Have Rights

If your money or property has been seized by law enforcement or federal authorities, you may have legal options to challenge the seizure.

But timing is critical.

Federal forfeiture procedures often include strict deadlines for filing claims or petitions.

If those deadlines are missed, recovering property becomes significantly more difficult.

Speaking with an experienced attorney early can make the difference between losing property permanently and successfully recovering it.

Contact Biazzo Law

If you believe your property has been wrongfully seized or you need representation in a federal civil matter, Biazzo Law may be able to help.

Our firm handles complex civil litigation and constitutional matters nationwide.

Biazzo Law Civil Trial and Constitutional Litigation Attorneys