The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Amaya, 67 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995):
Palacios-Amaya contends that the criminal charges should be dismissed because he has already been subjected to punishment for the same offenses through the government's uncontested administrative forfeiture proceedings. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Cretacci, No. 94-10235, slip op. 9565, 9571 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 1995), in which we held that an administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property does not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.