Two currency seizure cases at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. Same violation. Same port. Very different outcomes — and the difference comes down to one decision made in the first days after the seizure.
Case 1: $40,228 Seized — Represented by Great Lakes Customs Law
- Violation: Failure to report under 31 USC 5316
- Amount seized: $40,228
- Date of seizure: August 22, 2024
- Petition filed: September 26, 2024
- Decision received: March 5, 2025
- Outcome: $35,228 returned — 88% of seized funds recovered
Our client hired us shortly after the seizure. We filed a petition for remission supported by documentation establishing the legitimate source and intended use of the funds. CBP’s Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures office at the DFW port issued a decision approximately six months after the date of seizure, returning all but $5,000. Our client recovered nearly 88% of the seized amount.
Equally important: filing a petition preserved every subsequent option. Had CBP denied the petition or returned an insufficient amount, we could have filed a supplemental petition, escalated to a CAFRA judicial claim, or in the right circumstances pursued an offer in compromise. The petition kept all doors open while producing a favorable result in under six months.
Case 2: $14,310 Seized — Self-Represented
- Violation: Failure to report under 31 USC 5316
- Amount seized: $14,310
- Date of seizure: November 19, 2024
- Election filed: Offer in compromise at 10% of seized amount
- Offer rejected: August 19, 2025
- Outcome: No funds returned, no refund of submitted check, deadline nearly missed
This individual contacted us after the fact to share what had happened. After their cash was seized at DFW in November 2024, they chose to handle the case themselves. Rather than filing a petition, they submitted an offer in compromise under 19 USC 1617, proposing to pay 10% of the seized amount — $1,431 — in exchange for return of the remainder.
Nine months later, the offer was rejected. The problem was compounded by how they found out: they did not receive a formal decision letter in time and did not receive a refund of the check they had submitted with the offer. By the time they pieced together what had happened, the deadline to respond had already passed. After repeated follow-ups, CBP extended the deadline — but only by 10 days.
That left two difficult options: submit a new offer in compromise, which would likely take months more with uncertain odds of acceptance, or file a CAFRA judicial claim and enter federal litigation. Neither is a good position to be in more than nine months after the seizure, with less procedural flexibility than existed at the outset.
Several compounding mistakes drove this outcome. The offer in compromise was the wrong first election — a petition would have been resolved faster and almost certainly returned a higher percentage of the funds given the straightforward failure-to-report violation. The 10% offer was extremely low and gave CBP little incentive to accept. And critically, the self-represented individual had no system for tracking deadlines, following up with the FP&F office, or escalating when communications stalled.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Factor | Case 1 — Attorney Represented | Case 2 — Self-Represented |
|---|---|---|
| Amount seized | $40,228 | $14,310 |
| Election filed | Petition for remission | Offer in compromise (10%) |
| Time to resolution | ~6 months | 9+ months, still unresolved |
| Outcome | 88% of funds returned | Offer rejected, no funds returned |
| Options remaining | Supplemental petition, claim, offer in compromise | New offer in compromise or CAFRA claim — with compressed deadlines |
| Deadline management | Handled — no deadlines missed | Decision letter not received; deadline nearly lapsed |
What These Two Cases Show
The amounts seized were different, but that is not what drove the divergent outcomes. The Case 2 seizure was smaller and involved the same straightforward violation — if anything, it should have been easier to resolve. The difference was the election made on the Election of Proceedings form and how the process was managed from that point forward.
A petition filed promptly, supported by the right documentation, produces a decision in months and returns the majority of the funds in cases with no aggravating factors. An offer in compromise filed as a first election — particularly at a low percentage — is slow, narrows your options if rejected, and puts you in a worse position at every subsequent step than you would have been in had you started with a petition.
The other factor these cases illustrate is deadline management. CBP’s response timelines are unpredictable, decision letters sometimes arrive late or not at all, and missing a response deadline — even by days — can close options permanently. Managing that process is the part of currency seizure representation that people underestimate until they experience what happens when it goes wrong.
If your cash has been seized at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport or any other port, the most important decision you will make is what to file on the Election of Proceedings form — and whether to navigate that process alone. Read our customs money seizure legal guide and see our currency seizure case outcomes. Call us at (734) 855-4999, send a text message, or reach us on WhatsApp. You can also contact us online for a free case review.