If CBP seizes your cash at the airport and officers present you with a form to abandon your property, signing it is one of the most consequential decisions you can make — and most travelers who sign it do not understand what they are giving up. This post analyzes a federal court case we litigated in the Sixth Circuit in which a traveler attempted to set aside a forfeiture after signing an abandonment form at Detroit Metro Airport. The court ruled against our client. The decision is a significant and sobering data point for anyone who has already signed an abandonment form — or who wants to understand what not to do if CBP seizes their cash.
The Seizure and Abandonment at Detroit Metro Airport
In early 2022, a traveler departing from Detroit Metropolitan Airport was stopped by CBP and questioned about the currency they were carrying. The traveler had declared $15,000 on a FinCEN Form 105, but a search of their belongings revealed an additional $31,300 — bringing the total to $46,300. CBP seized the full amount and immediately presented the traveler with two documents:
- A Notice of Abandonment and Assent to Forfeiture
- An Election of Proceedings Form under CAFRA
The traveler signed both forms at the airport and departed. By signing the abandonment form, they relinquished any legal claim to the $46,300 on the spot. The traveler did not contact us or any other attorney immediately after the incident. More than a year passed before they reached out to explore whether anything could be done.
The Only Remaining Option: Motion to Set Aside Under 18 USC 983(e)
Once a forfeiture is complete, the standard petition and CAFRA claim processes are no longer available. The only remaining statutory avenue is a motion under 18 USC 983(e), which allows a court to set aside a completed forfeiture if the claimant can show they did not receive adequate notice of the forfeiture proceedings. We filed that motion on the traveler’s behalf — approximately two years after the original seizure, after extended negotiations with the government aimed at avoiding litigation.
Our arguments on the traveler’s behalf were:
- CBP failed to send written notice of the forfeiture proceedings to the traveler as required under CAFRA
- The abandonment was involuntary and coerced — signed during a stressful interrogation without adequate explanation of the consequences
- The forms presented were incomplete and misleading, lacking the required notice language and instructions
- The traveler had no actual knowledge of the forfeiture proceeding — only of the seizure — and CBP therefore had a legal duty to provide personal notice of the forfeiture that it failed to fulfill
We cited out-of-circuit authority supporting the distinction between knowledge of the seizure and knowledge of the forfeiture proceeding — including Ikelionwu v. United States and Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States — arguing that awareness of the seizure at the time it happened does not constitute adequate notice of the subsequent forfeiture proceeding that extinguishes the property right.
The Government’s Position
The government opposed the motion on three grounds:
- Actual knowledge of the seizure bars relief under the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of 983(e). Because the traveler was physically present at the seizure, they had actual knowledge of it — and under Sixth Circuit precedent, that actual knowledge is controlling, regardless of whether they received formal notice of the forfeiture proceeding.
- Written notice was provided at the time of seizure. CBP argued that the Election of Proceedings form presented at the airport satisfied CAFRA’s written notice requirement.
- Abandonment extinguished the traveler’s legal standing. By signing the abandonment form, the traveler relinquished any legal interest in the property — and therefore was no longer an interested party entitled to further notice of the forfeiture proceeding. The government also noted that the forfeiture was published on forfeiture.gov and that no timely claim had been filed.
The Court’s Ruling
The court denied the motion to set aside the forfeiture. The holding turned on the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of 18 USC 983(e): to obtain relief under that provision, a claimant must demonstrate both that they lacked notice of the forfeiture proceeding and that they lacked knowledge of the underlying seizure. Because the traveler was present at the seizure, the court held that the knowledge-of-seizure element was established — and that this fact alone barred relief under 983(e), regardless of whether formal notice of the forfeiture proceeding was separately provided.
The court declined to follow the out-of-circuit cases we cited, which had drawn a meaningful distinction between knowledge of the seizure and knowledge of the forfeiture proceeding. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, those are not treated as independent requirements — knowledge of the seizure is sufficient to deny relief under 983(e). The court also treated the signed abandonment as confirming the traveler’s knowledge and extinguishing any remaining claim to the property.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Its Specific Facts
This ruling has implications well beyond a single $46,300 seizure at DTW. The Sixth Circuit’s position — that actual knowledge of the seizure bars 983(e) relief regardless of what formal notice was provided afterward — effectively means that for travelers seized in person at U.S. airports and border crossings, the 983(e) motion is not a viable backstop after abandonment. The physical presence at the seizure is treated as notice.
CBP’s practice of presenting abandonment forms during the seizure itself — in a high-pressure airport environment, often without adequate explanation of what the form means — exploits this legal framework. A traveler who signs an abandonment form in the confusion of a CBP interrogation is, under this ruling, treated as having had full knowledge of their rights and having voluntarily waived them. The coercion arguments we raised, while legally sound, were not sufficient to overcome the actual-knowledge bar in this circuit.
This is not a universal rule across all circuits — the out-of-circuit cases we cited reflect a different analytical approach that may be available to travelers seized in other jurisdictions. But for anyone seized at Detroit Metro Airport, Ambassador Bridge, or any other port within the Sixth Circuit’s geographic jurisdiction, the practical message from this case is stark: if you sign an abandonment form at the time of seizure, your legal options for recovery are extremely limited.
What You Should Know Before Any CBP Seizure
This case illustrates several principles that apply to every currency seizure — regardless of whether an abandonment form is involved:
- Do not sign the abandonment form. You are not required to sign it. CBP officers may pressure you, but signing an abandonment form at the airport permanently waives your legal interest in the property. Refuse to sign and request to speak with an attorney before making any election.
- If you have already signed an abandonment form, act immediately. The longer you wait, the narrower the available options become. Contact a customs attorney the same day if possible. The 983(e) motion we filed in this case was our only remaining tool — and it failed in part because of the two-year delay before the motion was filed. Earlier contact might not have changed the outcome on the knowledge-of-seizure issue, but it would have preserved more options and more time.
- Request copies of everything. At the time of seizure, request copies of every form you are given — including the abandonment form, the Election of Proceedings form, and the custody receipt. The absence of copies makes it harder to establish what notice was actually provided.
- Coercion claims are difficult to establish after the fact. We argued coercion in this case. Courts are skeptical of these claims without contemporaneous evidence. If you believe you were pressured to sign, document it in writing as soon as possible after leaving the port.
- The CAFRA notice requirements can be effectively sidestepped by abandonment. CBP’s use of the abandonment form at the time of seizure — before the formal forfeiture proceeding begins — is the mechanism by which CBP avoids the obligation to provide personal notice of the forfeiture. This court upheld that practice. Understanding this is essential to understanding why the abandonment form is so consequential.
Have You Signed an Abandonment Form or Received a Notice of Forfeiture?
If you signed an abandonment form at the time of seizure and are now trying to recover your money, the options are limited but not necessarily exhausted — and the analysis depends heavily on the jurisdiction and the specific facts of your case. If you received a Notice of Seizure and have not yet responded, the standard petition and CAFRA claim processes are still available and should be pursued immediately.
Great Lakes Customs Law has litigated currency forfeiture cases in federal court and handles currency seizure matters at every stage — from initial petition through 983(e) motions. Call us at (734) 855-4999, text us, WhatsApp us, or contact us online for a free case review.