On August 9, 2013, CBP officers working southbound inspections at the Calexico downtown port of entry, alongside members of the Imperial Valley Border Enforcement Security Task Force, referred a 2007 Honda Accord for secondary examination. A currency and firearms detector dog alerted. Inside the vehicle’s gas tank, officers found 39 vacuum-sealed packages holding $829,980 in U.S. currency. The driver was arrested, the money and the car were seized, and CBP placed an immigration hold to begin removal proceedings once the criminal case concluded.
Cases like this one dominate CBP’s press releases, which distorts what most people picture when they hear the phrase CBP currency seizure. The overwhelming majority of seizures do not look like this. They involve a traveler carrying money they earned, from a source they can document, who filled out the form wrong or answered a question badly. It is worth being direct about the difference, because the difference determines whether a case is worth fighting and how.
Not Every Seizure Is Defensible
An honest customs practice tells prospective clients when their facts are bad. Some seizures present a genuine dispute about a reporting obligation, an honest mistake, or an aggressive interpretation by a port. Others present a fact pattern with no legitimate explanation available.
Certain facts weigh heavily against recovery:
- The amount is far outside the claimant’s documented financial life. A sum that cannot be tied to income, a sale, a loan, or an account is difficult to explain regardless of how it is argued.
- The concealment required effort. Vacuum-sealed packaging, a fuel tank, or a fabricated compartment is not consistent with an inadvertent failure to report.
- The traveler made false statements. A denial contradicted by a search removes most of the available arguments about confusion or misunderstanding.
- There is prior violation history. A repeat reporting violation changes CBP’s mitigation posture substantially.
- The claimant does not own the money. This is the issue people understand least, and it is often dispositive.
Conversely, cases built on a documented source, a coherent intended use, no concealment, and consistent statements are the ones where a well-prepared submission does real work. Outcomes always depend on the specific facts, but the facts are knowable at the outset, and a candid assessment is more useful to a client than an optimistic one.
Who Is Actually Entitled to Claim the Money
In a case like the Calexico seizure, the driver is transporting funds that almost certainly belong to someone else. That creates a structural problem that has nothing to do with the strength of any legal argument.
To pursue seized currency, whether administratively or in court, a person generally has to establish an actual interest in the property. Bare physical possession is usually not enough on its own. A courier who cannot show ownership or a legitimate possessory interest may have no standing to contest the forfeiture at all.
The owner’s dilemma
The person who actually owns the money must come forward and identify themselves as the owner in order to claim it. Where the funds have an unlawful origin, doing so is self-incriminating. This is why large courier seizures are frequently forfeited by default: not because no argument existed, but because nobody with standing was willing to appear.
The same question arises in ordinary, legitimate cases and is easy to get wrong. A business owner whose employee was carrying company funds, a family member whose savings were being transported by a relative, or a lender holding title to a seized vehicle each has an interest worth asserting, and each has to assert it in their own name rather than relying on the traveler. The mechanics of asserting that interest in a judicial proceeding are covered on our page about the CAFRA seized asset claim form.
A Petition Is a Legal Document, Not a Form
Where a claimant does have standing and a defensible set of facts, the quality of the written submission matters enormously. This is the point at which most people go wrong on their own.
A petition for remission or mitigation is not a form to be completed. It is a legal document, no different in character from any other filing in a legal proceeding, and a serious one contains:
- A detailed factual narrative of what led to the seizure, written to be consistent with everything already in the record.
- Documentary exhibits establishing the source of the funds and the intended use.
- A review of the governing statutes and regulations as they apply to the specific violation alleged.
- An analysis under CBP’s own mitigation guidelines, addressing the mitigating factors present and confronting the aggravating factors directly rather than ignoring them.
- Where the facts support it, an argument for full remission, and in the alternative an argument for return upon payment of the smallest fine the guidelines permit.
A short letter asserting that the money was lawfully earned, with nothing attached, gives the deciding officer nothing to work with. Our page on the petition for remission or mitigation of seized cash explains the process and the deadlines that apply.
The election form is the decision that cannot be undone
The Notice of Seizure arrives with an election of proceedings form and a short deadline, ordinarily 30 days. Whether to petition, to file a claim demanding court proceedings, to offer a settlement, or to do nothing determines who decides the case and what evidence is considered. Choosing before understanding the trade-offs is the most consequential mistake available in these matters.
Seizures at Calexico and the California Ports
Calexico is one of several high-volume southbound crossings in California where outbound currency enforcement is routine and where task force units operate alongside CBP officers. A vehicle referred for secondary in that environment has usually been selected rather than picked at random, which is worth understanding for anyone who assumes their stop was arbitrary.
Seizures at these crossings are administered through the Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures office for the field office rather than at the port itself, and the notice arrives by mail. Our page on cash seized at San Diego area ports of entry covers the regional process.
For non-citizens, the money is frequently not the largest exposure. The immigration hold placed in this case is a reminder that a currency violation can carry consequences well past the forfeiture itself, including effects on status, on re-entry, and on trusted traveler programs. Those collateral effects are discussed on our page about the long-term consequences of a cash seizure, and any immigration exposure should be evaluated by immigration counsel.
Cash Seized by CBP?
We will tell you honestly how your facts look before you decide anything. Great Lakes Customs Law handles currency seizures at ports nationwide. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I claim money that was seized from me but belongs to someone else?
Generally not on possession alone. A person contesting a forfeiture usually has to establish an ownership or legitimate possessory interest in the property. The actual owner typically needs to come forward and assert the claim in their own name.
My employee was carrying company money when it was seized. What do I do?
The business should assert its own interest rather than relying on the employee’s response. Corporate records, payroll documentation, and evidence of the funds’ purpose are central, and the deadlines apply to the business the same way they apply to an individual.
Is it worth hiring an attorney if my case looks bad?
That depends entirely on the facts, and a candid evaluation should come before any fee discussion. Some cases have a realistic path to remission or a reduced fine, and some do not. A practitioner who handles these regularly should be able to tell you which category yours falls into.
What should a petition for remission include?
A detailed factual narrative, documentary proof of the source and intended use of the funds, analysis of the governing statutes and regulations, and an argument applying CBP’s mitigation guidelines to the specific circumstances, including the aggravating factors present.
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 practice immigration law, and any immigration consequences described here should be evaluated by qualified immigration counsel. 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 a publicly reported arrest are descriptive only; an arrest or charge raises no inference of guilt. You should consult a licensed attorney about your particular situation before taking or refraining from any action.