An offer in compromise is one of three options presented on the Election of Proceedings form after a CBP currency seizure. It is a settlement mechanism — you propose a payment amount, and if CBP accepts, the case is resolved without full administrative or judicial forfeiture proceedings. Understanding when this option makes sense, how it works procedurally, and how it compares to a petition is essential before making any election.
What an Offer in Compromise Actually Is
An offer in compromise under 19 USC 1617 is a formal settlement proposal submitted to CBP in which the claimant offers to pay a specified amount in full satisfaction of the government’s forfeiture claim. If CBP accepts the offer, the seized funds are returned minus the agreed settlement amount, and the case is closed. If CBP rejects it, the case continues and you must pursue another option — typically a CAFRA judicial claim, since the October 2023 revision of the CAFRA notice removed language that previously confirmed a second offer in compromise could be submitted after a first was denied.
As explained in United States v. Martin, 460 F. Supp. 2d 669 (D. Md. 2006), an offer in compromise is designed to resolve cases where full litigation would be disproportionate to the amount at stake or where the government’s likelihood of prevailing is genuinely uncertain. It is not the same as a petition for remission or mitigation, which is based on mitigating circumstances and requests relief from forfeiture as a matter of discretion — not as a negotiated settlement.
The Legal Framework: 19 USC 1617 and 19 CFR Part 172
The offer in compromise process is governed by 19 USC 1617 and the implementing regulations at 19 CFR Part 172, Subpart D. To be valid, an offer in compromise must:
- Be submitted in writing
- Include a proposed payment amount
- Clearly state that it is made pursuant to 19 USC 1617
Before CBP can accept an offer, a customs officer or attorney must prepare an internal report addressing three things: the facts supporting forfeiture, an assessment of the likelihood of prevailing in court or administratively, and the proposed terms of compromise. This internal review requirement is one of the reasons the offer in compromise process is often slower than the petition process — CBP cannot simply evaluate your submission on its merits, it must also conduct its own analysis before responding.
Is an Offer in Compromise Faster Than a Petition?
No — and CBP’s own notice of seizure acknowledges this. Choosing an offer in compromise may delay resolution because CBP must complete its internal investigation and report before accepting or rejecting the offer. A petition for remission or mitigation, by contrast, involves CBP evaluating the facts and arguments you present without first preparing a separate internal assessment of litigation risk. In practice, petitions are resolved faster at most ports.
The claim that an offer in compromise is faster than a petition is one of the pieces of bad advice that circulates among attorneys who handle these cases infrequently. It is almost universally false. See our full analysis of which option is best and why.
When an Offer in Compromise Makes Sense
The offer in compromise is best suited to cases where:
- The administrative petition process has already been exhausted. If an initial petition and supplemental petition have been denied and a CAFRA judicial claim carries significant litigation risk, an offer in compromise can be a pragmatic final step that avoids the cost and uncertainty of federal court.
- The government’s case is legally doubtful. If there are legitimate questions about whether CBP had proper authority to seize the funds, or whether the evidence supporting forfeiture is weak, proposing a settlement can resolve the case favorably without requiring the government to formally concede those weaknesses in court.
- Documentation of legitimate source or intended use is incomplete. When the evidentiary record for a petition is weak — no bank records, tax returns, or other documentation that clearly establishes the money’s origin and purpose — a negotiated settlement may produce a better outcome than a petition that CBP is likely to deny.
- The amount in dispute makes litigation disproportionate. In cases involving smaller seizure amounts, the cost and time of CAFRA judicial proceedings may outweigh the potential recovery. An offer in compromise can close the case efficiently when that calculus applies.
When an Offer in Compromise Is Not the Right First Step
We generally advise against submitting an offer in compromise as a first election on the Election of Proceedings form. Starting with a settlement proposal before CBP has even evaluated your case concedes ground you may not need to concede. A petition costs nothing to file beyond attorney time, preserves all subsequent options including escalation to a CAFRA claim, and in cases with strong documentation frequently results in full or near-full recovery without any settlement at all.
The offer in compromise should be thought of as a tool available at multiple stages of the process — not as the first move. Filing a petition first keeps every option open. Filing an offer in compromise first narrows your path if the offer is rejected, particularly given the uncertainty around whether a second offer can be submitted under the revised CAFRA notice.
How to Submit an Offer in Compromise
An offer in compromise can be submitted at any time before CBP formally forfeits the property. It must be submitted in writing to the FP&F office administering the case, must specify the amount offered, and must reference 19 USC 1617. There is no prescribed form — the offer is drafted as a letter or formal submission and should be accompanied by any supporting documentation that strengthens the argument for acceptance.
The amount you offer matters. CBP will evaluate whether the proposed settlement amount is reasonable relative to its assessment of the government’s litigation position and the cost of further proceedings. An offer that is too low is likely to be rejected outright. Working with an attorney who understands CBP’s internal evaluation framework — and who has experience negotiating these cases at the relevant port — significantly improves the likelihood of an acceptable outcome.
Questions About Whether an Offer in Compromise Is Right for Your Case?
Great Lakes Customs Law has handled currency seizure cases at every stage of the process — from initial petitions through offers in compromise and CAFRA judicial claims. If you are trying to determine the right strategy for your case, or if your petition has already been denied and you are evaluating next steps, call us at (734) 855-4999 or contact us online for a free case review.