This is the story of how an immigrant worked hard, played by the rules and realized the American dream, only to have the federal government vaporize it.
In 1997, Khalid “Ken” Quran immigrated to the United States and opened a convenience store in Greenville, N.C.. The married father of four spent the next 17 years working seven days a week at the store, raising his family (all of whom graduated from college and became American citizens) and saving money for his retirement.
Then in 2014, the Internal Revenue Service seized Quran’s entire bank account, worth more than $150,000, under civil asset forfeiture laws. Quran was accused of making bank deposits of smaller than $10,000, which the IRS saw as violating “structuring” laws. Such laws are designed to capture individuals and businesses that try to evade bank-reporting laws.
Quran hasn’t even been charged with a crime, much less convicted. But nor has he been given his money back. In fact, according to a recent report by the Institute for Justice, for six months, the IRS has refused to reply to a petition asking it to return its ill-gotten gains to their rightful owner, Quran.
Quran is not alone in this predicament. His petition includes the case of Randy Sowers, a Maryland dairy farmer from whom the IRS confiscated nearly $30,000 for similar reasons.
The IRS and Justice Department have since reformed their policies on structuring violations. But that hasn’t helped Quran and hundreds of others like him whose lives are on hold because of government predation.
Quran’s story highlights the need for civil asset forfeiture reform. Civil asset forfeiture is an instrument that government uses to seize money or property it suspects of being involved in a crime.
Law enforcement agencies have used it, however, to seize property (not just money but homes, cars, jewelry, electronics and more) on suspicion rather than actual evidence of criminal activity. The targeted individual or business need not be charged or convicted before the feds expropriate their hard-earned fortune, however small. The property is forfeited unless and until the target can prove his or her innocence. This runs counter to the basic constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
Seized assets are, of course, valuable, which is why law enforcement officials love them. Prosecutors have reportedly lived it up in seized homes and used seized money to pay off student loans. Police departments often spend seized funds on expensive toys.
Civil asset forfeiture laws are legitimate under some circumstances, such as when they’re used to combat funding networks of drug cartels and terrorists. But too often it’s actually used to pad law police budgets. According to one report, 40 percent of police departments say money they seize has become a necessary source of income.
By allowing law enforcement to keep proceeds from a forfeiture, the law creates a perverse incentive for police aggression. With their assets seized, many targets, including Ken Quran, cannot pay the legal fees needed to defend themselves. According to a Washington Post investigation, $4.3 billion were seized under civil asset forfeiture in 2012.
This is scantily camouflaged extortion, and it cries out for reform. Where forfeiture is appropriate, its proceeds should not go to local police department budgets, but into the state’s general fund. That way the policy has less incentive to victimize innocent people. Another reform would raise the burden of proof for forfeiture from “a preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.” Several states have taken action to limit or abolish the practice. Congress should follow their lead and enact similar reforms at the federal level.
When abused, civil asset forfeiture violates property rights, due process and the presumption of innocence that are the basis of our legal system. And it can undermine trust between police and the public, corroding a reciprocity necessary for society to function properly.
Unless and until there is reform, America will be forfeiting not only the private property of many of its citizens, but also the principles that lie at the heart of its constitutional democracy.
