PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 28, 2014
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014 - Amends the federal criminal code to require the government to include in any notice required to be sent in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute that the person receiving the notice may be able to obtain free or reduced rate legal representation.
Requires the government, in a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of property, to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence (currently, by a preponderance of the evidence).
Provides that where a prima facie case is made for an innocent owner defense, the government has the burden of proving that the claimant knew or reasonably should have known that the property was involved in the illegal conduct giving rise to the forfeiture (currently, the claimant has the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner). Places the burden on the government to show that the property owner should have had knowledge of the criminal activity by demonstrating that the property owner did not: (1) give timely notice to law enforcement of information that led the person to know the conduct giving rise to a forfeiture occurred; and (2) in a timely fashion, revoke or attempt to revoke permission for those engaging in such conduct to use the property or take reasonable actions in consultation with law enforcement to discourage or prevent the illegal use of the property.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the court, in determining whether the forfeiture was constitutionally excessive, to consider such factors as the seriousness of the offense, the extent of the nexus of the property to the offense, the range of sentences available for the offense giving rise to forfeiture, the fair market value of the property, and the hardship to the property owner and dependents (currently, the court is required to compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture).
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) specify, in the annual report on the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, deposits from each type of forfeiture, identifying which funds were obtained from criminal forfeitures and which were obtained from civil forfeitures; and (2) assure that any equitable sharing between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a local or state law enforcement agency was not initiated for the purpose of circumventing any state law that prohibits civil forfeiture or limits use or disposition of property obtained via civil forfeiture by state or local agencies.
People & committees
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5212 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5212 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5212 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5212 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.