Property forfeiture has become one of the more controversial law enforcement techniques currently used in the War on Drugs. The extensive use of administrative and civil-judicial forfeiture proceedings has resulted in increased criticism of the program because of its limited protection for suspects and relaxed burdens of proof for the government. The paper argues for 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 or civil forfeiture, can reduce instances of abuse and criticism of the program, and, if successful, can result in the incapacitation of both the offender and the property. A shift in emphasis to criminal forfeiture proceedings should provide the government the ability to focus effectively on its objectives, protect the rights of the accused and innocent owners, and allay criticisms of this policy. Tables, references, cases cited