A historical review of the development of assets forfeiture theory and law begins by tracing the development of drug-control policy in the United States. It notes that over time, a substantial and complex drug-fighting bureaucracy became an established and dominant component of the Federal justice system. The history of forfeiture itself is noted to have emerged early in European history, but it evolved into a process considerably different from its original form. Currently, it is a complex process with both civil and criminal dimensions. Each of these dimensions is discussed. Components of the discussion include attention to modern assets forfeiture in the United States and features of major legislation that has affected modern drug assets forfeiture. The authors advise that although the rationale for assets forfeiture was originally to inflict punishment and provide a deterrent for drug trafficking by depriving traffickers of the financial incentive for engaging in the manufacture and sale of illegal drugs, over the years many law enforcement agencies have become dependent on the lucrative revenues of assets forfeiture in order to fund their operations. The research conducted by the authors found that the primary objectives of assets forfeiture within the upper echelons of Federal, State, and local government continue to be punishment and deterrence; however, the front-line agents view assets forfeiture as an important source of revenue for their agencies. The latter motivation creates the potential for abuse, including the tendency to target illicit drug enterprises that offer the most lucrative potential for forfeiture rather than those that pose the greatest threat to society. This book recommends a forfeiture policy that emphasizes penalty attributes rather than deterrence; the discouragement of the use of civil judicial forfeitures; the removal of the control of forfeiture proceeds from direct control by the heads of local agencies; and restricting Federal adoptive forfeiture in cases in which the Federal agencies did not have a significant role in the investigation. Suggestions are offered for future research. Chapter references and appended partial listing of drug and money laundering-related statutes that contain forfeiture provisions, a partial listing of non drug-related statutes that contain forfeiture provisions, and the assets forfeiture survey questionnaire used in the research