skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 92200 Find in a Library
Title: Criminal Forfeiture and the Necessity for a Post-Seizure Hearing - Are CCE (Continuing Criminal Enterprises Act) and RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) Rackets for the Government?
Journal: St John's Law Review  Volume:57  Issue:4  Dated:(Summer 1983)  Pages:776-804
Author(s): J A Hegler
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 29
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: An adversarial hearing should take place following the issuance of a restraining order pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Continuing Criminal Enterprises Act (CCE).
Abstract: These restraining orders can be imposed on the indicted individual's property during the pendency of the trial. Upon conviction, the property is forfeited to the government, thereby removing it from the working capital of organized crime. Although these provisions appear to serve as effective weapons to attack the economic foundation of organized crime, the procedural aspects of the forfeiture process have been called into question. Neither of the laws outlines the procedural method to be used in accomplishing a property seizure. Moreover, analogous case law or statutes do not exist. As a result, several courts have concluded that a hearing is constitutionally mandated, while others have declined to adopt such a position. The main reason for advocating an adversarial hearing is the requirement of due process. The hearing should take place immediately after the government restrains property alleged to be subject to forfeiture. Such a requirement minimizes the possibility for error and abuse inherent in the broad grant of enforcement power embodied in both statutes. Footnotes which contain references are provided.
Index Term(s): Forfeiture; Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act; Right to Due Process
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=92200

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.