Asset forfeiture has evolved from an obscure body of maritime law into a major revenue-producing drug control program. The expansion of forfeiture has attracted the increased attention of critics from diverse sources who cite the potential for and instances of forfeiture law abuse. Opponents have questioned the government's motives for using forfeiture, the limited protections offered with forfeiture proceedings, and the overall effectiveness of forfeiture. Further, criticisms of forfeiture are not based solely on speculation since research has identified many instances of abuse by law enforcement agents in search of revenue. Also fueling criticisms, the government has failed to conduct a national impact study of the value of forfeiture as a deterrent. Instead, the government relies primarily on reporting annual revenue deposits to the Federal Assets Forfeiture Fund. In addition, criticisms of forfeiture indicate it is primarily directed at in rem proceedings in the form of administrative and civil administrative forfeitures. The authors argue for the expanded use of criminal forfeiture proceedings as a complement to and substitute for in rem actions. Criminal forfeiture reduces the perception of law enforcement as revenue collection agents, provides the wrongdoer with full legal protection not available under administrative and civil forfeiture, can reduce abuse, and can incapacitate both offender and assets. 48 references and 4 tables