In September 2013, CBP officers running southbound inspections at the Andrade port of entry in the Imperial Valley referred a minivan for further examination. The driver was 56, his passenger 54. Among the household items in the back was a large box. Emptied out, it held bundles of currency totalling $296,010.
Both occupants were turned over to Homeland Security Investigations and transported to the Imperial County Jail to await arraignment. Not just the driver. Both.
That raises a question we get asked constantly and that almost nothing written about currency seizures addresses: if you were sitting in the passenger seat, what exactly did you do wrong?
Who Is “Transporting” the Money?
The reporting statute reaches a person who transports, is about to transport, or has transported monetary instruments across a U.S. border. It does not say “the driver.”
Two people travelling together in a vehicle carrying more than $10,000 are both capable of being treated as transporting it. Whose name is on the registration, who holds the keys, and who happens to be behind the wheel are facts that matter to the analysis but do not decide it. Nor does ownership: the obligation attaches to the person moving the money, not to whoever it belongs to. The scope of the duty is set out on our page covering the CBP cash reporting requirement and FinCEN Form 105.
Being a passenger is not a status that protects you
It is also not irrelevant. A passenger who knew about the money and its concealment is in a very different position from one who genuinely did not, and that distinction runs through the criminal case, the forfeiture, and any petition. What a passenger cannot do is assume the seat they were sitting in answers the question for them.
Knowledge Matters, But Differently on Each Side
This is where companions get caught out, because the two proceedings treat their ignorance very differently.
On the criminal side
An allegation of bulk cash smuggling requires proof that concealment was undertaken with intent to evade the reporting requirement. For a passenger, the government has to connect them to that intent rather than to the vehicle. Presence alone is thin evidence. Prosecutors know it, which is one reason companions are frequently arrested at the port and never charged.
On the civil side
Forfeiture runs against the money itself, and the question is not whether the passenger did anything wrong. It is whether they have an interest in the property worth asserting and, if the funds are connected to someone else’s violation, whether they can establish that they did not know of the conduct or took what steps could reasonably be expected once they learned of it.
That is a real defence and it is also a demanding one. It requires showing an actual ownership interest first, which is a threshold a passenger travelling with someone else’s money often cannot cross. Our page on the CAFRA seized asset claim form covers what asserting an interest involves.
Two People Arrested Together Are Not Automatically on the Same Side
Couples and relatives detained together almost always assume they will be handled as a unit, tell the same story, and use the same lawyer. That assumption can be expensive.
Interests diverge quickly
The strongest position for a passenger who genuinely did not know is to say so, and that account may point directly at the person sitting next to them. The strongest position for the driver may be that the money was jointly held and jointly understood. Those two accounts cannot both be advanced by the same lawyer. Where one party is a non-citizen and the other is not, the gap widens further.
None of that means a couple must fight each other. It means each person’s exposure should be assessed before any joint explanation is offered to anyone, and our page on why claimants should not call CBP after a currency seizure applies with particular force when two people are giving accounts that will be compared.
A Box Is Not a False Compartment
One detail in this case is worth separating from the headline figure. The money was in a box, among household items, in the back of a minivan. It was not welded into a fuel tank or built into a bumper.
That difference is legally meaningful even at $296,010. Concealment with intent to evade the reporting requirement is what supports a smuggling allegation, and packing something in a box among your possessions is a great deal closer to ordinary transport than fabricating a cavity to hide it. The amount here is large enough that it will draw scrutiny regardless, but the characterisation of how it was carried is contestable rather than conceded, and it feeds directly into how CBP weighs aggravating factors.
People moving between countries genuinely do carry cash among household goods. The failure in a case like this is the failure to declare it, not the box.
What Each Person Should Do
Where two travellers are involved, the response has to be built person by person rather than as one story:
- Establish separately what interest each person actually has in the money, if any.
- Assemble documentation of source and intended use that belongs to whoever genuinely holds it.
- Confirm who received the Notice of Seizure and at what address, since the deadline runs for each claimant independently.
- Consider whether separate representation is necessary before either person gives an account.
Seizures at Andrade, Calexico, and the other Imperial Valley crossings are administered through the San Diego Field Office, and our page on cash seized at San Diego area ports of entry covers the regional process. Outcomes depend heavily on the specific facts, the documentation available, and the circumstances of the stop.
Detained as a Passenger?
Where two travellers are involved, each position needs its own assessment before anyone gives an account. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions
I was only a passenger. Can CBP hold me responsible?
Yes. The reporting duty attaches to a person transporting money across the border, and that is not limited to the driver. Whether you knew about the money matters a great deal to the outcome, but being a passenger is not by itself an answer.
Does it matter that the money was not mine?
For the reporting obligation, no. The duty follows whoever is transporting it. For the forfeiture, ownership matters enormously, because contesting a seizure generally requires establishing an interest in the property.
My spouse and I were both detained. Should we use the same lawyer?
Not necessarily. Each person’s best account may be inconsistent with the other’s, particularly where one genuinely did not know about the money. Assess each position separately before either of you gives an explanation.
Is cash packed in a box among belongings treated as concealed?
Not automatically. Concealment supporting a smuggling allegation requires an intent to evade the reporting requirement, and ordinary packing is not the same as building a compartment. Where a concealment finding does not fit the physical facts, it is worth challenging.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it, or contacting Great Lakes Customs Law through this website, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Great Lakes Customs Law does not represent defendants in federal criminal proceedings; references to the criminal process here are general background. Whether any particular person may be held liable, and whether any defence is available, depends entirely on the facts of the individual case. Laws, regulations, and CBP procedures change, and the outcome of any customs seizure or forfeiture matter depends heavily on its specific facts and circumstances. No result is guaranteed or implied. References to publicly reported arrests are descriptive only; an arrest raises no inference of guilt. You should consult a licensed attorney about your particular situation before taking or refraining from any action.