## Facts

- Two corporate officers of BSP, a Canadian corporation, entered the United States carrying $47,980 in Canadian currency.
- At the border, the officers were questioned by U.S. Customs about the amount of currency they were transporting.
- The officers misrepresented the amount of currency they were carrying.
- Customs officers searched the vehicle and seized the $47,980 based on a violation of federal currency-reporting requirements governing cross-border transportation of monetary instruments.
- BSP pursued administrative relief after the seizure; during that process the government indicated criminal charges were being considered.
- The government filed a judicial civil forfeiture complaint about 14 months after the seizure.

## Issues

1. Whether a 14-month delay between seizure and the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint violated due process under the Fifth Amendment when evaluated using the *Barker v. Wingo* factors as applied to forfeiture actions.
2. Whether forfeiture for violating federal cross-border currency-reporting requirements requires proof that the claimant willfully refused to declare the currency with actual knowledge of the reporting requirement.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment sustaining forfeiture in favor of the United States.
- Applying the *Barker* balancing test, the court held the 14-month delay did not violate due process.
- The court held forfeiture did not require proof of a willful, knowing refusal to declare; proof of a reporting violation (including misrepresentation of the amount) was sufficient in the civil forfeiture action.

## Legal Principles

- Delay in initiating civil forfeiture proceedings is evaluated under the *Barker v. Wingo* four-factor test: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) claimant’s assertion of the right to a hearing, and (4) prejudice.
- Consideration of potential criminal investigation or prosecution may be a valid reason supporting delay in filing a civil forfeiture action.
- For prejudice, the claimant must show more than temporary deprivation of the seized property; prejudice focuses on concrete harm such as impairment of the ability to contest forfeiture.
- In a civil in rem forfeiture based on currency-reporting violations, the government need not prove the heightened mens rea required for criminal liability; establishing a violation of the reporting requirements can support forfeiture.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a 14-month delay in filing a civil forfeiture complaint, justified in part by investigation and evaluation of possible criminal charges and absent a showing of concrete prejudice, did not deny due process, and it sustained forfeiture based on the claimant’s failure to comply with cross-border currency-reporting requirements without requiring proof of a willful, knowing refusal to report.


United States v. Forty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Dollars ($47,980) in Can. Currency, 804 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986)