FEDERAL · 18 U.S.C. · Chapter 232
Remission or mitigation of forfeitures under liquor laws; possession pending trial
18 U.S.C. § 3668
Title18 — Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter232 — MISCELLANEOUS SENTENCING PROVISIONS
This text of 18 U.S.C. § 3668 (Remission or mitigation of forfeitures under liquor laws; possession pending trial) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
18 U.S.C. § 3668.
Text
(a)Jurisdiction of court
Whenever, in any proceeding in court for the forfeiture, under the internal-revenue laws, of any vehicle or aircraft seized for a violation of the internal-revenue laws relating to liquors, such forfeiture is decreed, the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to remit or mitigate the forfeiture.
(b)Conditions precedent to remission or mitigation
In any such proceeding the court shall not allow the claim of any claimant for remission or mitigation unless and until he proves (1) that he has an interest in such vehicle or aircraft, as owner or otherwise, which he acquired in good faith, (2) that he had at no time any knowledge or reason to believe that it was being or would be used in the violation of laws of the United States or of any State relating to liquor, a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. James Smith
344 F.3d 479 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Reginald Hallman
23 F.3d 821 (Third Circuit, 1994)
United States v. James Carroll Beckett
208 F.3d 140 (Third Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Bette J. Pree, Also Known as Betts Pree
408 F.3d 855 (Seventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Chalupnik
514 F.3d 748 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Donald Catherine
55 F.3d 1462 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Wilfong
551 F.3d 1182 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Joseph E. Kirkland, III
853 F.2d 1243 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Lamar Bertucci
794 F.3d 925 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
Carnesi v. United States
933 F. Supp. 2d 388 (E.D. New York, 2013)
United States v. Stephanie Bevon
602 F. App'x 147 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Stephen Murphy
385 F. App'x 745 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Mayhew
213 F. App'x 586 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Webb
883 F. Supp. 197 (E.D. Michigan, 1995)
United States v. Michael Disch
347 F. App'x 421 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Matthew Borowski
589 F. App'x 640 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Sarad
227 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (E.D. California, 2016)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 840, §3617; renumbered §3668, Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §212(a)(1), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1987; amended Pub. L. 107–217, §3(d), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1299.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §646 (Aug. 27, 1935, ch. 740, §204, 49 Stat. 878).
A minor change was made in phraseology.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–217 substituted "section 1306 of title 40" for "sections 304f–304m of Title 40".
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §646 (Aug. 27, 1935, ch. 740, §204, 49 Stat. 878).
A minor change was made in phraseology.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–217 substituted "section 1306 of title 40" for "sections 304f–304m of Title 40".
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
18 U.S.C. § 3668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/18/3668.