PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12223-12224)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 8, 1998
Drug Currency Forfeitures Act - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to create a rebuttable presumption that property is subject to forfeiture if the Government offers a reasonable basis to believe that, based on specified circumstances, there is a substantial connection between the property and a drug trafficking offense. Includes among such circumstances that: (1) the property at issue is currency in excess of $10,000 that was being transported through an airport, on a highway, or at a port-of-entry and was packaged or concealed in a highly unusual manner, was being transported by a person who provided false information to any inspection officer, was found near a measurable quantity of a controlled substance, or was the subject of a positive alert by a trained dog; (2) the property at issue was acquired during a time period by a person who was engaged in a drug trafficking offense and there is no other likely source for such property; (3) the property at issue was, or was intended to be, transported, transmitted, or transferred to or from a major drug-transit country, illicit drug producing country, or money laundering country, and specified other conditions are met; or (4) any person involved in the transaction giving rise to the forfeiture action has been convicted in any Federal, State, or foreign jurisdiction of a drug trafficking offense or a felony involving money laundering, or is a fugitive from prosecution for such an offense. Amends the Federal criminal code provisions concerning money laundering forfeitures to create a rebuttable presumption that property is the proceeds of an offense involving the felonious manufacture, importation, or other dealing in a controlled substance, and thus constitutes the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, if any of the circumstances set forth above apply.
People & committees
Sen. Cleland, Max [D-GA] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12223-12224)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9979-9981)
Introduced in Senate
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 10, 2026. 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 S.2449 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 S.2449 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 S.2449 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 S.2449 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.