![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/US-CourtOfAppeals-8thCircuit-Seal.png/640px-US-CourtOfAppeals-8thCircuit-Seal.png&w=640&q=50)
United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency
2006 US federal court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 458 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2006),[1] was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that was handed down on August 18, 2006.
United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit |
Full case name | United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, et al |
Argued | April 19 2006 |
Decided | August 18 2006 |
Citation | 458 F.3d 822 |
Case history | |
Prior history | Judgment for the defendant, appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska |
Holding | |
Bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking. A plausible, but unlikely explanation by a claimant fails to show that the currency was not substantially connected to a narcotics offense. Judgment of the district court reversed. | |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Steven Colloton, Morris S. Arnold, Donald Pomery Lay |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Colloton, Arnold |
Dissent | Lay |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png)
The form of the styling of this case—the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person—is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case. In current US legal practice, in rem is most widely used in the area of asset forfeiture, frequently in relation to controlled substances offenses. In rem forfeiture cases allow property (in this case, $124,700 in cash) to be directly sued by and forfeited to the government, without either just compensation or the possessor (and presumptive owner) being convicted of a crime.