Federal Bank Account Seizures and Freezes

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

A frozen or emptied account can be a bank’s own compliance decision, a creditor’s garnishment, an IRS levy, a sanctions block or the first visible step in a federal forfeiture case, and the document behind the freeze decides what can be done next. This page sorts out who froze the account and under what authority, then explains what federal law does and does not allow you to get released; the full civil and criminal process is covered on our federal asset forfeiture attorney page. Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. handles federal matters nationwide from offices in Columbia and Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

Quick Answer

Can the government freeze your bank account? Yes, even before any charge: a court can restrain it (§ 983(j) civil; § 853(e) criminal), or agents can seize the balance by warrant (§ 981(b) civil; § 853(f) criminal). Ask for the order or warrant; its statute decides your options. Civil hardship release generally excludes bank funds (§ 983(f)(8)(A)).

Key Takeaways

• A freeze, a seizure and a forfeiture are different events. A restraining order bars moving the money (18 U.S.C. § 983(j) civil; 21 U.S.C. § 853(e) criminal), a seizure warrant takes it into custody (18 U.S.C. § 981(b) civil; 21 U.S.C. § 853(f) criminal), and only a forfeiture judgment transfers title (92 Buena Vista Ave., plurality).
• Freezes entered before a complaint or indictment run on extendable clocks. An order entered after notice and a hearing lasts up to 90 days, and one entered without notice up to 14 days, unless extended (§ 983(j)(2)–(3) civil; § 853(e)(1)–(2) criminal).
• Hardship release is civil, limited to cases under CAFRA (the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000), and generally excludes bank money. 18 U.S.C. § 983(f)(8)(A) bars release of currency and electronic funds unless they are assets of a legitimate business “which has been seized,” which the reported decisions read to require seizure of the business itself.
• In a civil forfeiture commenced within a year of the offense, the government need not trace the dollars. 18 U.S.C. § 984 lets identical funds in the same account be forfeited in place of the original deposits.
• The IRS needs an illegal source or another crime to seize for structuring. Since July 1, 2019, 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(B) has barred IRS structuring seizures unless the money came from an illegal source or the structuring concealed another crime.
• Your bank may not tell you whether it filed a Suspicious Activity Report. 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2) and 31 C.F.R. § 1020.320(e) make SARs confidential.

Who froze my account? The triage table

The fastest way to tell who froze your account is to identify the document behind the freeze, and how to unfreeze a bank account depends entirely on that answer. A bank acting on its own shows you no court paper, an IRS levy follows IRS notices, a sanctions block comes from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and a federal freeze or seizure ordinarily rests on a warrant or court order that names a statute. The table sorts the eight common sources of a frozen bank account by what you will see, the authority, the document to request and the first move.

Who froze it	What you will see or be told	Legal authority	Document to ask for	Court order?	First move	Where it is covered
Bank compliance hold	The bank restricts or closes the account, often citing “suspicious activity” or a review, and shows no warrant, order, levy or writ; it will not say whether it filed a report	Account agreement and state law; Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) secrecy, 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2)(A)(i) and 31 C.F.R. § 1020.320(e); bank immunity for not telling you, § 5318(g)(3)(A)	The bank’s written hold or closure notice and your account agreement	No	Ask in writing what the bank needs to lift the hold or pay out the balance; do not expect it to confirm or deny a SAR	This page (FAQ on bank secrecy)
Creditor garnishment	A writ or garnishment notice in a private debt case	State law; not federal forfeiture	The writ and the judgment behind it	Court process in the creditor’s case, under state law	State exemption and challenge rules apply; consult counsel in that state	Not covered here: state law governs
IRS levy	IRS letters first: notice of intent to levy at least 30 days ahead (unless the IRS finds collection in jeopardy) and notice of hearing rights at least 30 days before the first levy; the bank holds levied deposits 21 days before paying them over	26 U.S.C. § 6331(a), (d); § 6330(a); § 6332(c). Tax collection, not forfeiture; the Internal Revenue Code is outside CAFRA (18 U.S.C. § 983(i)(2)(B))	The two IRS notices and the notice of levy served on the bank	No (administrative)	Use the hearing rights described in the IRS notice; consult tax counsel	Not covered here: tax collection
Civil seizure warrant	The balance is removed and the bank reports a federal seizure warrant; in an administrative case, written notice is due within 60 days of seizure, subject to the statute’s exceptions	18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2)–(3); CAFRA notice rule, § 983(a)(1)(A)(i)	The warrant, the receipt or inventory (Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f)(1)(C)–(D)) and the agency’s notice letter	Yes: a judge found probable cause	Note the claim deadline printed in the notice letter; consider hardship release only if eligible	This page and notice of seizure
Criminal seizure warrant	The balance is removed under a warrant in a criminal matter, sometimes before indictment; an indictment may later give notice of forfeiture (Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a))	21 U.S.C. § 853(f), applied to fraud and laundering cases by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)	The warrant, its case number and court, and any indictment’s forfeiture allegation	Yes: probable cause of forfeitability on conviction, and that a restraining order “may not be sufficient”	Retain defense counsel; identify the untainted money in the account	This page and criminal forfeiture
Restraining order	The money stays put but cannot be moved. Before a complaint or indictment, you get notice of a hearing or learn of a temporary order entered without notice; once one is filed, the order can rest on that filing	Civil: 18 U.S.C. § 983(j). Criminal: 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)	The order, its entry date and the subsection it rests on	Yes	For a temporary order entered without notice, request the hearing, which must be held “at the earliest possible time and prior to the expiration of the temporary order”	This page
OFAC / IEEPA block	The bank says the funds are “blocked” under U.S. sanctions; no court is involved; the bank must report the block to OFAC within 10 business days	50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B); 31 C.F.R. § 501.603; outside CAFRA, 18 U.S.C. § 983(i)(2)(D)	The blocking notice and the OFAC Reporting System ID numbers (§ 501.806(d)(5))	No (executive action)	A mistaken-identity release requested by the blocking bank (§ 501.806); an application to unblock or for a license (§ 501.801); a delisting petition (§ 501.807)	This row only
SEC or FTC asset freeze	A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in a civil enforcement suit, sometimes reaching a relative or company holding the defendant’s money	SEC: 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1), (5), (7); freezes “may be directed against a custodian of the defendant’s assets, including a nominal defendant” (Kimberlynn Creek, 4th Cir. 2002, a CFTC case). FTC: in the Eleventh Circuit, § 19(b) but not § 13(b) alone after AMG (2021) (Simple Health, 11th Cir. 2023)	The freeze order and the complaint	Yes (civil)	Respond in the enforcement case, where the freeze is litigated	SEC investigation

If your bank account was frozen due to suspicious activity and the bank cites no warrant, order, levy or writ, ask in writing whether the hold rests on legal process served by a court or agency, or on the bank’s own decision under the account agreement; the answer tells you which row applies. Two further points:

• The statute decides the track, not only the agency. CAFRA supplies the procedure in 18 U.S.C. § 983 for most civil forfeitures, but § 983(i)(2) excludes customs law (Title 19), the Internal Revenue Code, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the sanctions statutes and 22 U.S.C. § 401. Our notice of seizure page maps which agency uses which statute.
• Payment suspensions are not forfeiture. Medicare and Medicaid suspensions withhold future program payments after a “credible allegation of fraud” (42 C.F.R. § 405.371(a)(2); 42 C.F.R. § 455.23(a)(1)); they do not seize money already in an account (see our healthcare fraud page). Seizures by state or local agencies in state proceedings are governed by state law.

Can the government freeze your bank account? Restraint, seizure and forfeiture

Yes, the government can freeze or seize your bank account, even before anyone is charged, but “freeze” covers three legal events with different statutes and remedies: a restraining order keeps the money in place, a seizure warrant takes it into government custody, and a forfeiture judgment transfers ownership to the United States.

Event	What happens to the money	Civil (CAFRA) authority	Criminal authority	Who owns the money meanwhile
Restraining order	Stays in the account; it cannot be withdrawn or moved	18 U.S.C. § 983(j)	21 U.S.C. § 853(e)	You do
Seizure warrant	Moved into government custody	18 U.S.C. § 981(b)	21 U.S.C. § 853(f)	You do, until a forfeiture judgment (92 Buena Vista Ave., plurality)
Forfeiture judgment	Title passes to the United States	18 U.S.C. § 981(f)	21 U.S.C. § 853(c)	The United States, with title relating back to the date of the offense

Before any charge. Civil forfeiture is a case against property, not a person: CAFRA defines a civil forfeiture statute as one providing for forfeiture “other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense” (18 U.S.C. § 983(i)(1)). Civil seizure warrants and civil restraining orders therefore need no criminal charge. In criminal cases, 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(B) allows a restraining order before indictment after notice and a hearing, and § 853(e)(2) allows a temporary order without notice. Criminal forfeiture itself is imposed only on a person “convicted,” as part of the sentence (§ 853(a)); that process is on our criminal forfeiture page.

Can the FBI freeze your bank account without a warrant? Ordinarily not. Under 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2), a civil seizure “shall be made pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,” except where a forfeiture complaint has been filed and the court has issued an arrest warrant in rem; where there is probable cause and the seizure is made incident to a lawful arrest or search, or another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies; or where state or local police lawfully seized the property and transferred it to a federal agency. The criminal counterpart, 21 U.S.C. § 853(f), likewise authorizes seizure by a warrant issued on probable cause.

Restraint is the lesser intrusion. In United States v. Monsanto (1989), the Supreme Court approved a pretrial restraint under § 853(e), the criminal restraint statute, based on “a finding of probable cause to believe that the assets are forfeitable,” noting that the defendant “was not ousted from his property, but merely restrained from disposing of it” (491 U.S. 600).

Forfeiture reaches back, but only after judgment. In civil cases, title “shall vest in the United States upon commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture” (18 U.S.C. § 981(f)), and 21 U.S.C. § 853(c) says the same for criminal cases, so money moved after the offense can still be reached. In a criminal case, a later transferee keeps the property only by proving, in a hearing under § 853(n), that it was a bona fide purchaser for value without reason to believe the property was forfeitable; in a civil case, a later acquirer must make a similar showing under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(3)(A). Spouses, partners and lenders should read our innocent owner defense page. Relation back is not self-executing. Construing parallel language in 21 U.S.C. § 881(h), a Supreme Court plurality wrote: “Until the Government does win such a judgment, however, someone else owns the property” (United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave., 507 U.S. 111 (1993)).

What should you do in the first 72 hours?

Whether the government froze your account or seized the balance, collect the legal paper, identify which clock it starts, and leave the remaining money where it is until a lawyer has read the documents.

1. Get the documents. The warrant or order, with its case number and issuing court; the receipt for the property, which the executing officer must give, with a copy of the warrant, to “the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken” (Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f)(1)(C)); the bank’s written notice; and any agency notice letter.
2. Identify the track. The statute cited tells you whether the case is civil or criminal and whether CAFRA applies (18 U.S.C. § 983(i)(2)); see our notice of seizure page.
3. Find every date the paper sets, and do not estimate any of them. A CAFRA notice letter prints a claim deadline that “may be not earlier than 35 days after the date the letter is mailed,” and if the letter never arrives, a claim is due 30 days after final publication (§ 983(a)(2)(B)). A temporary restraining order expires within 14 days of entry unless extended (§ 983(j)(3) civil; § 853(e)(2) criminal). An IRS structuring notice opens a 30-day window, running from the date notice is provided, to request a court hearing (31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(B)(iv)).
4. Leave the remaining money alone. The reasons are in the Applied Insight below.
5. Route communications through counsel. A CAFRA claim is made “under oath, subject to penalty of perjury” (§ 983(a)(2)(C)(iii)), and what you say about the money can matter in a parallel criminal case. If you or your bank has received a grand jury subpoena for records, a grand jury investigation is open; our federal investigation attorney page covers that stage.
6. Assemble proof of clean money. Payroll records, invoices, loan documents and tax returns showing where the deposits came from matter in every posture discussed below.

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: In the first 72 hours, the most useful thing a client can bring is paper, not explanations: the warrant or order, the seizure receipt or inventory, the case number and issuing court, and the bank’s written notice of what it was served and when. Those documents show which statute applies, which court controls and which clock is running. Just as important is what not to do. Leave the remaining money where it is until counsel has read the paperwork, even if bills are due. If money that is moved later proves forfeitable, a transfer to a third party is one of the listed grounds for forfeiting substitute property after conviction (21 U.S.C. § 853(p)(1)(B)), and knowingly transferring property, before, during or after a search or seizure, to prevent or impair the government’s lawful authority to take or keep it is a separate federal crime (18 U.S.C. § 2232(a)). Payroll and rent should be raised through counsel with the prosecutor or the court, not solved by self-help.

What is a seizure warrant, and how does one reach a bank account?

A seizure warrant is a court order, issued by a judge on probable cause, that authorizes agents to take specific property for forfeiture; for a bank account, it is served on the bank and the balance is transferred to the government. It targets property subject to forfeiture rather than evidence, but both forfeiture statutes borrow the search-warrant procedure.

Civil seizure warrants. Beyond the warrant requirement in § 981(b)(2) described above, the warrant may be issued by “a judicial officer in any district in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed” and “may be executed in any district in which the property is found” (18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(3)), so the issuing court can sit far from the bank branch. A motion for return of the property “shall be filed in the district court in which the seizure warrant was issued or in the district court for the district in which the property was seized” (same subsection). When agents took property and no forfeiture case follows, that remedy is explained on our motion for return of property page.

Criminal seizure warrants. 21 U.S.C. § 853(f) requires “probable cause to believe that the property to be seized would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture and that an order under subsection (e) may not be sufficient to assure the availability of the property for forfeiture.” That second finding is what separates a criminal seizure from a criminal restraining order. Section 853’s procedures reach wire fraud, bank fraud and laundering prosecutions through 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). In June 2026, a federal court in Arizona held that “§ 853(f) applies” to pre-indictment warrants for three financial accounts, one of them at Coinbase, where the government’s affidavit explained that without a seizure a bank might “fail[] to put the necessary safeguards in place to freeze the money in time to prevent the account holder from accessing the funds electronically” (United States v. Kontos, No. 2:25-cr-00915 (D. Ariz. June 1, 2026)).

Who receives a copy. Rule 41(f)(1)(C)–(D) requires the executing officer to give a copy of the warrant and a receipt, and the judge on request to give a copy of the inventory, to “the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken.” The rule does not say whether that includes an account holder whose money a bank held, so ask the bank in writing what it was served and have counsel request the warrant and inventory. Search warrants generally are covered on our page on the federal investigation process.

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: The first question the paper answers is whether it is a warrant or an order, and under which subsection. A warrant under § 981(b) points to a civil case and, in an administrative proceeding, to a notice letter with a printed claim deadline. A warrant under § 853(f) points to a criminal case, where challenges run through the criminal court. A temporary order entered without notice under § 983(j)(3) or § 853(e)(2) is short-lived, and a requested hearing must be held before it expires. Those markers decide which court hears a challenge and which deadline is running, so the firm identifies them first.

How long can the government keep your account frozen?

It depends on the tool. A restraining order entered before a complaint or indictment has a statutory limit that can be extended, a freeze entered after a complaint or indictment has no end date in the statute, and seized money stays in custody until the forfeiture is resolved or the money is returned.

Tool	Track	Period the statute sets	How it ends or is extended	Source
Restraining order before a complaint, entered after notice and a hearing	Civil (CAFRA)	“not more than 90 days”	Extended “by the court for good cause shown”; the limit falls away once a forfeiture complaint is filed	18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(2)
Temporary restraining order before a complaint, entered without notice	Civil (CAFRA)	“not more than 14 days”	Extended for good cause or by consent; a requested hearing must be held “at the earliest possible time and prior to the expiration of the temporary order”	18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(3)
Restraining order before indictment, entered after notice and a hearing	Criminal	“not more than ninety days”	Extended by the court for good cause; the limit falls away once an indictment or information is filed	21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)
Temporary restraining order before indictment, entered without notice	Criminal	“not more than fourteen days”	Extended for good cause or by consent; a requested hearing must be held before it expires	21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(2)
Order entered after a complaint or indictment	Civil or criminal	No time limit stated	Tied to the pending complaint or indictment	18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(1)(A); 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(A)

The periods are maximums with extensions built in, so no freeze should be assumed to end on a particular day. The notice-and-hearing route is also a real contest: before entering an order after notice, the court must find “a substantial probability that the United States will prevail on the issue of forfeiture” and that preserving the property “outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is to be entered” (§ 983(j)(1)(B) civil; § 853(e)(1)(B) criminal). In both versions, the court “may receive and consider” evidence “that would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence” (§ 983(j)(4) civil; § 853(e)(3) criminal), so hardship and tracing evidence can be put before the judge early.

Seized money runs on a different clock. In a CAFRA administrative case, the agency’s notice is generally due within 60 days of the seizure, and after a claim is filed the government has 90 days, unless a court extends the period, to file a forfeiture complaint, obtain an indictment with a forfeiture allegation and preserve custody under the criminal statute, or return the property (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i), (a)(3)). That sequence is covered on our notice of seizure page; structuring seizures have their own timelines, set out below.

How does § 984 let the government take replacement money from the same account?

In a civil forfeiture case against funds in a bank account, 18 U.S.C. § 984 lets the government forfeit identical money found in the same account without proving which dollars came from the offense, but only if the action is brought within one year of the offense. The rule exists because money is fungible: once tainted dollars are deposited, they cannot be told apart from the rest.

The text. In a “forfeiture action in rem” against “funds deposited in an account in a financial institution,” “it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture,” and “it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has been removed and replaced by identical property” (§ 984(a)(1)). Under § 984(a)(2), “any identical property found in the same place or account as the property involved in the offense” is forfeitable.

The one-year limit. No action to forfeit property “not traceable directly to the offense” may be “commenced more than 1 year from the date of the offense” (§ 984(b)). The Third Circuit holds that this “requires the filing of a complaint within one year of the offense” (United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003)); after that, the government must trace the money under the ordinary forfeiture statutes. A 1999 Central District of California decision instead held that “either the filing of the complaint or the seizure ‘commence’ the action” (United States v. Funds Representing Proceeds of Drug Trafficking in the Amount of $75,868.62, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (C.D. Cal. 1999)). In the Fourth Circuit the question is unsettled; the Eastern District of Virginia has said that “[t]he correct interpretation of the one-year time limit rarely arises and has not been conclusively settled” (United States v. $79,650 Seized from Bank of America Account Ending in -8247, No. 1:08-cv-01233 (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2009)).

Civil only, with an interbank exception. Section 984 applies only in an action in rem, so it gives the government nothing in a criminal case, and it “does not apply to an action against funds held by a financial institution in an interbank account unless the account holder knowingly engaged in the offense” (§ 984(c)(1)).

What it means for a commingled business account. A January 2026 civil forfeiture decision from the Middle District of North Carolina shows the rule at full strength. Business-email-compromise proceeds were wired into a car dealer’s account, and the Secret Service seized the balance under a warrant. Because the government sued “within the one year allotted under § 984(b),” the court held that “up to $1,695,000 of the currency seized … is subject to forfeiture, regardless of whether it can be traced directly to the original fraud proceeds.” Only $909,708.64 remained, so “the entire amount” was forfeitable, and the government did “not need to distinguish the forfeited currency from the $36,111.58 in identical currency held in the account prior to the receipt of fraud proceeds” (United States v. $909,708.64 in U.S. Currency, No. 1:23-cv-00559 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2026), applying § 984; the claimant’s appeal, No. 26-1071, is pending in the Fourth Circuit). As that decision shows, within the year a business’s own pre-existing money in the same account may not be protected by being clean.

The criminal contrast. Criminal forfeiture has no § 984. In Kontos, the Arizona criminal case described above, the court ordered the government to “relinquish the untainted funds, namely, the $277,210.34 from the CS Account and the $47,605.11 from the Coinbase Account,” because a connection to the offense “does not exist merely because tainted and untainted funds reside in the same account” (D. Ariz. June 1, 2026, applying 21 U.S.C. § 853).

Hardship release under § 983(f): the checklist, and why bank funds rarely qualify

Hardship release under 18 U.S.C. § 983(f) lets a claimant in a civil (CAFRA) forfeiture recover seized property while the case is pending if five conditions are met, but its exclusion for currency and electronic funds means it is not a general remedy for frozen cash. The checklist quotes the statute. All five conditions must be met, and under § 983(f)(8) the subsection “shall not apply if the seized property” falls within any one of the four exclusions.

Item	Statutory text (verbatim)	What it means for seized bank funds
Condition (f)(1)(A)	“the claimant has a possessory interest in the property”	A right to possess the balance, shown with account and corporate records
Condition (f)(1)(B)	“the claimant has sufficient ties to the community to provide assurance that the property will be available at the time of the trial”	Residence, business operations and history in the community
Condition (f)(1)(C)	“the continued possession by the Government pending the final disposition of forfeiture proceedings will cause substantial hardship to the claimant, such as preventing the functioning of a business, preventing an individual from working, or leaving an individual homeless”	Documented hardship: missed payroll, inability to operate, loss of housing
Condition (f)(1)(D)	“the claimant’s likely hardship from the continued possession by the Government of the seized property outweighs the risk that the property will be destroyed, damaged, lost, concealed, or transferred if it is returned to the claimant during the pendency of the proceeding”	A stated plan to spend the money invites a finding of dissipation risk (E.D.N.Y. 2014; 4th Cir. 2004)
Condition (f)(1)(E)	“none of the conditions set forth in paragraph (8) applies”	Every exclusion below must be ruled out
Exclusion (f)(8)(A)	“is contraband, currency, or other monetary instrument, or electronic funds unless such currency or other monetary instrument or electronic funds constitutes the assets of a legitimate business which has been seized”	The barrier for bank money: the reported decisions require that the business itself was seized, not merely its accounts
Exclusion (f)(8)(B)	“is to be used as evidence of a violation of the law”	Any seized property held as evidence
Exclusion (f)(8)(C)	“by reason of design or other characteristic, is particularly suited for use in illegal activities”	Turns on the nature of the property itself
Exclusion (f)(8)(D)	“is likely to be used to commit additional criminal acts if returned to the claimant”	Turns on the risk of future misuse

The procedure (CAFRA civil forfeiture only)

1. File a claim. “Any person filing a request for hardship release must also file a claim to the seized property” (28 C.F.R. § 8.15(b)), and court petitions are limited to “a person who has filed a claim to the property” (Supplemental Rule G(8)(d)(i)). The claim mechanics are on our notice of seizure page.
2. Ask the agency first, in writing. The claimant “must request possession of the property from the appropriate official,” stating “the basis on which the requirements of paragraph (1) are met” (18 U.S.C. § 983(f)(2)). The Eastern District of Michigan has enforced the sequence: such petitions “must be presented to the seizing government agency or official before they are filed with the Court” (United States v. $1,756.03 in U.S. Currency, 772 F. Supp. 3d 842 (E.D. Mich. 2025)).
3. Wait 15 days, then petition the court. If the property “has not been released” within 15 days after the request, the claimant may petition the district court where a complaint was filed or, if none, where the warrant was issued or the property was seized, stating the basis for each condition and “the steps the claimant has taken to secure release of the property from the appropriate official” (§ 983(f)(3)). Copies go to the agency and the U.S. Attorney (28 C.F.R. § 8.15(e)).
4. The government responds. If it shows the claim is frivolous, “the court shall deny the petition”; in responding on other grounds, it may in appropriate cases submit evidence ex parte to protect a criminal investigation or trial (§ 983(f)(4)).
5. The court decides. The court must rule “not later than 30 days after the date of the filing, unless such 30-day limitation is extended by consent of the parties or by the court for good cause shown” (§ 983(f)(5)). That is the court’s deadline, not the claimant’s.
6. Conditions follow a grant. The court may order inspection, a bond or insurance, and the government may place a lien or file a lis pendens (§ 983(f)(7)).

Why bank funds rarely qualify

The exception in § 983(f)(8)(A) for “the assets of a legitimate business which has been seized” might seem to cover a business whose operating account was taken, but the reported decisions read it otherwise. Within the Fourth Circuit, the Northern District of West Virginia reasoned that because § 983 “deals exclusively with seized property, using ‘which has been seized’ to modify assets would render the phrase superfluous,” and it denied release to a trucking company and a pallet company whose accounts had been seized, even though the government had conceded the other conditions (In re Seizure Warrants Issued March 27, 2008, & April 23, 2008, 593 F. Supp. 2d 892 (N.D.W. Va. 2008)). A 2011 District of Utah court said it was “not aware of any case in which this exception was found to apply to anything other than an actual seized business” (844 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Utah 2011)). The District of Columbia (United States v. Sum of $70,990,605, 991 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2013)) and the Eastern District of New York (In re Seizure of Any & All Funds on Deposit in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 25 F. Supp. 3d 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)) agree.

The Fourth Circuit left the question open. In United States v. Undetermined Amount of U.S. Currency (2004), a district court had released $303,162.28 in seized bank funds, which it found were assets of the claimants’ legitimate tomato-farming business, so they could pay their lawyers. The Fourth Circuit vacated the release because, even assuming that paying lawyers could count as a hardship, the hardship did not outweigh the risk of dissipation under § 983(f)(1)(D), and it said expressly: “We need not here address the district court’s holdings as to § 983(f)(1)(C), (E), or (f)(8)” (376 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2004)).

Hardship release can work for non-cash property. An earlier District of Columbia decision refused to release a bank account but released two seized vehicles on condition that they be insured under § 983(f)(7)(A)(iii) (United States v. $1,231,349.68 in Funds, 227 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D.D.C. 2002)).

No back door, and nothing outside CAFRA. The Sixth Circuit has held that a Rule 65 injunction cannot be used to get around § 983(f), which “strictly limits the situations in which such relief is available” (United States v. Contents of Accounts, 629 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2011)). If the government proceeds only criminally, “the Government’s right to continued possession of the property shall be governed by the applicable criminal forfeiture statute” (§ 983(a)(3)(C)), and hardship release never reaches seizures under the customs, tax and sanctions statutes that § 983(i)(2) excludes. The Constitution supplies no shortcut: “In civil forfeiture cases, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing, but does not require a separate preliminary hearing” (Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024)).

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: When the frozen account belongs to an operating business, the arguments that matter most are usually made outside § 983(f). Hardship is a statutory factor at the hearing on a restraining order sought before a complaint or indictment (§ 983(j)(1)(B)(ii) civil; § 853(e)(1)(B)(ii) criminal), so documented hardship belongs there. The Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2025 (ch. 4, § II) also tells prosecutors to think carefully before seizing a business’s operating account that may be needed for the next payroll or to pay essential suppliers. That guidance is policy, not law, and it creates no enforceable rights, but it frames a concrete request: payroll dates, vendor obligations and the clean sources of the account’s money, all documented.

Getting money released in a criminal case

A criminal case has no hardship-release statute, and a court cannot free restrained money traceable to the charged offense to cover living or business expenses. What can be contested is whether particular money is untainted, and in the Fourth Circuit, § 853(e) does not allow untainted substitute assets to be restrained before trial.

No hardship statute. When the government proceeds only criminally, custody is governed by the criminal forfeiture statute (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(C)), and 21 U.S.C. § 853 contains nothing like § 983(f). A June 2026 decision from the Eastern District of Kentucky put it directly: “the Court is aware of no comparable hardship stay provision relevant to criminal forfeitures” (United States v. Robertson, No. 3:24-cr-00010 (E.D. Ky. June 30, 2026)). For property traceable to the offense, the Supreme Court has held that § 853(e)(1)(A) “cannot sensibly be construed to give the district court discretion to permit the dissipation of the very property that § 853(a) requires be forfeited upon conviction” (United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989)).

Untainted money is different. Sitting en banc in 2017, the Fourth Circuit held that “[b]y its plain text, Section 853(e) permits the government to obtain a pretrial restraining order over only those assets that are directly subject to forfeiture as property traceable to a charged offense,” and overruled its own contrary precedent (United States v. Chamberlain, 868 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc)). Substitute assets, meaning a defendant’s clean property that 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) lets a court forfeit after conviction when the tainted property cannot be reached for one of the reasons the statute lists, therefore cannot be frozen under § 853(e) before trial in the Fourth Circuit. One statutory exception matters in bank fraud and healthcare fraud matters: the civil fraud-injunction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2)(B), authorizes a restraining order barring the withdrawal or transfer of property obtained as a result of a banking law violation or a federal health care offense “or property of equivalent value.” The 2016 Supreme Court decision on paying counsel, discussed below, arose under that statute.

Proving money is untainted. Two routes appear in the cases. First, a defendant who needs seized untainted assets to hire counsel can seek a hearing. In United States v. Farmer (4th Cir. 2001), where agents had seized the defendant’s assets under civil forfeiture statutes, the court held that “a brief hearing will provide an opportunity for Farmer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the government seized untainted assets without probable cause and that he needs those same assets to hire counsel,” after a threshold showing of genuine need (274 F.3d 800). Second, a court may order untainted funds returned even from a commingled account, as the Arizona court did in Kontos. Timing matters: in August 2026 the Seventh Circuit held that “a defendant must challenge a pretrial asset restraint within a reasonable period after discovering or obtaining the means to discover the restraint may be improper,” and reviewed a late challenge only for plain error (United States v. Shah, No. 24-2230 (7th Cir. 2026)).

Paying a lawyer from frozen funds. Luis v. United States (2016) produced no majority opinion: a four-Justice plurality wrote that “insofar as innocent (i.e., untainted) funds are needed to obtain counsel of choice, we believe that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the court order that the Government seeks,” and Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment (578 U.S. 5). Kaley v. United States (2014) bars an indicted defendant from using a restraint challenge to relitigate the grand jury’s probable-cause finding on the charges (571 U.S. 320). How the two decisions fit together is set out in the section on paying for a lawyer under Luis and Kaley on our main forfeiture page.

Structuring seizures: what the IRS can and cannot take

Since July 1, 2019, the IRS may seize money for structuring only if it came from an illegal source or was structured to conceal another crime; it must generally give notice within 30 days and return the money unless a court finds probable cause on both points after a timely hearing request. Those statutory limits do not bind other agencies.

What is being seized. 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) makes it an offense to “structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions” to evade federal currency-reporting requirements such as those in 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a). Structuring bank deposits is an offense separate from laundering, and the offense itself is covered on our money laundering page. Property involved in a structuring violation “may be seized and forfeited … in accordance with the procedures governing civil forfeitures in money laundering cases pursuant to section 981(a)(1)(A)” (31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(A)), and criminal forfeiture of property involved in the offense is mandatory on conviction (§ 5317(c)(1)). Title 31 is not among the statutes that 18 U.S.C. § 983(i)(2) excludes from CAFRA, and the exclusion for the Internal Revenue Code in § 983(i)(2)(B) does not by its terms reach these forfeitures, so IRS structuring forfeitures follow CAFRA’s civil procedure; IRS Criminal Investigation’s posted forfeiture notices cite 18 U.S.C. § 981 (IRS notice, agency notice). District courts have applied CAFRA’s rules in structuring cases: a federal court in Michigan dismissed a structuring forfeiture complaint filed after § 983(a)(3)’s 90-day deadline (United States v. Funds From Fifth Third Bank Account #0065006695, E.D. Mich. 2013), and the Eastern District of North Carolina weighed CAFRA’s fee-shifting provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1), in dismissing a structuring forfeiture with prejudice (United States v. $107,702.66 in U.S. Currency, E.D.N.C. 2016).

The IRS-only limits in 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(B). Each applies to property “seized by the Internal Revenue Service”:

1. Illegal source or concealment. The IRS may seize for a claimed § 5324 violation only “if the property to be seized was derived from an illegal source or the funds were structured for the purpose of concealing the violation of a criminal law or regulation other than section 5324” (§ 5317(c)(2)(B)(i)).
2. Notice within 30 days. Within 30 days after the seizure, the IRS must make “a good faith effort to find all persons with an ownership interest in such property” and give each “a notice of the seizure and of the person’s rights” (§ 5317(c)(2)(B)(ii)). It may seek “one 30-day extension” only on “probable cause of an imminent threat to national security or personal safety” (§ 5317(c)(2)(B)(iii)).
3. A prompt hearing. If an owner requests a court hearing within 30 days after notice is provided, the property “shall be returned unless the court holds an adversarial hearing and finds within 30 days of such request” (or a longer period granted at an interested party’s request) probable cause both of a § 5324 violation and that the money came from an illegal source or was structured to conceal another crime (§ 5317(c)(2)(B)(iv)).

Congress enacted these limits on July 1, 2019, in § 1201 of the Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. 116-25; the same reform had passed the House in 2016 as the Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act, H.R. 5523. Interest the government pays on a recovered IRS structuring seizure is excluded from gross income (26 U.S.C. § 139H).

Why the limits exist. In 2017, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported that on October 17, 2014, the IRS had issued a policy indicating that IRS Criminal Investigation would “no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds related to legal source structuring cases unless exceptional circumstances justify it.” Reviewing a sample of IRS structuring seizures, TIGTA found: “In the other 252 (91 percent) of the 278 cases, we did not find evidence that the structured funds came from an illegal source or involved any other illegal activity” (TIGTA Report No. 2017-30-025 (Mar. 30, 2017)). At the time, the law did “not require that the funds have an illegal source”; § 5317(c)(2)(B) changed that for IRS seizures.

Other agencies. A structuring seizure by the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, the Secret Service or another non-IRS agency is outside § 5317(c)(2)(B). The Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2025 (ch. 4, § V), which is policy rather than law, covers “all federal seizures for civil or criminal forfeiture based on a violation of the structuring statute, except those occurring after an indictment or other criminal charging instrument has been filed.” Absent a charge or special approval, a prosecutor “shall not move to seize structured funds unless there is probable cause that the structured funds were generated by unlawful activity or that the structured funds were intended for use in, or to conceal or promote, ongoing or anticipated unlawful activity.” If the evidence proves insufficient, the prosecutor must direct the agency to return the money “within seven (7) days” of reaching that conclusion, and unless approval is obtained, an indictment or civil complaint must follow within 150 days of a seizure based solely on structuring, a deadline the claimant’s written consent can extend once by 60 days and that does not apply to administrative cases, which run on CAFRA’s own time limits. The Manual “does not, however, create or confer any legal rights, privileges, or benefits that may be enforced in any way by private parties.” When an IRS seizure is part of a broader criminal tax inquiry, see our tax fraud page.

Crypto seizures: can the government seize bitcoin?

Yes. The government seizes and forfeits bitcoin and other cryptocurrency under the same statutes, warrants and claim procedures it uses for bank accounts, and Justice Department policy treats an exchange account much like a bank account.

The authority. Civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) reaches “[a]ny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such property,” and § 981(a)(1)(C) reaches property “which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to” listed offenses. Federal district courts have applied both to cryptocurrency. A magistrate judge in the District of Maryland, recommending forfeiture of bitcoin under § 981(a)(1)(A) for unlicensed money transmitting, observed that “[b]ecause the Bitcoins seized do not constitute real property, the United States appropriately sought and executed a seizure warrant” (United States v. 50.44 Bitcoins, No. 1:15-cv-03692 (D. Md. May 31, 2016) (report and recommendation)). In criminal cases, § 853(f) warrants reach exchange accounts too, as the Coinbase account in Kontos shows.

How agents seize it (policy, not law). The Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2025 (ch. 4, § I.B) directs that “[u]nless a seizing agency has obtained authorization through a search warrant or consent by the owner, the seizing agency should obtain a seizure warrant for the seizure of cryptocurrency.” For crypto in a wallet or account “hosted by a U.S.-based virtual asset service provider (VASP), such as an institutional exchange, the seizing agency should obtain and serve a seizure warrant on the service provider, similar to executing a seizure warrant on a bank account.” Cryptocurrency seized this way “should be kept in the form it was seized and not liquidated (i.e., converted to fiat currency or other cryptocurrency) until a final order of forfeiture is entered or an administrative forfeiture is final.”

Exchanges sometimes freeze first. In a March 2026 District of Columbia case, “MEXC and Binance voluntarily froze the four accounts, but by the time of the seizure, the perpetrators had withdrawn substantial funds from at least two of the accounts.” After an in rem complaint and a warrant in rem, “[n]o claims were filed,” the theft victim petitioned for remission instead, and the court entered a default judgment forfeiting the funds as wire-fraud proceeds under § 981(a)(1)(C) (United States v. All Virtual Currency Seized from One MEXC Account Ending in 8248, No. 1:24-cv-03309 (D.D.C. Mar. 17, 2026)). In a civil forfeiture, an owner contests a crypto seizure like any other, by a timely claim; the choice between a claim and a remission petition is explained on our notice of seizure page.

The April 7, 2025 Deputy Attorney General memorandum. “Ending Regulation By Prosecution” changed enforcement priorities, not seizure procedure: the Department “will no longer target virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for the acts of their end users or unwitting violations of regulations,” subject to exceptions, and will focus on “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors” and on those who use digital assets to further crimes such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing (DAG memorandum). Part III notes that, because of 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c), “some digital asset investor victims have only been able to recover the value of their digital assets at the time the fraud was perpetrated,” and directs the Office of Legal Policy and the Office of Legislative Affairs “to evaluate and propose legislative and regulatory changes to address this concern.” That regulation limits a victim’s remission to “the fair market value of the property of which the victim was deprived as of the date of the occurrence of the loss” (28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c)). The memo disclaims any “right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity.”

Executive Order 14233 (March 6, 2025). The order governs what happens after forfeiture, not how crypto is seized or contested. Bitcoin held by the Treasury Department that was “finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings” capitalizes a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, and “Government BTC deposited into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve shall not be sold” (Exec. Order No. 14233, 90 Fed. Reg. 11789, § 3(a)). Government digital assets may still be returned to “identifiable and verifiable victims of crime” when the Attorney General or agency head so determines (§ 3(d)), and the order creates no enforceable rights (§ 5(c)).

What changed in 2025 and 2026

Several developments since early 2025 bear directly on frozen and seized accounts. Each entry states what it does and does not change.

Date	Development	What it means for a frozen or seized account
2025	Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2025 “replaces and supersedes all previous versions”	Current DOJ policy on structuring seizures, crypto held at exchanges and operating-business accounts; policy, not law
February 24, 2025	$1,756.03 in U.S. Currency (E.D. Mich.)	Hardship petitions must go to the agency before the court (§ 983(f)(2)–(3), CAFRA civil)
March 6, 2025	Executive Order 14233	Finally forfeited bitcoin is held in a reserve and “shall not be sold”; seizure and claim procedure unchanged
April 7, 2025	Deputy Attorney General memorandum	New digital-asset enforcement priorities and a review of the date-of-loss rule in 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c); no seizure rules
January 12, 2026	$909,708.64 in U.S. Currency (M.D.N.C.; appeal pending, 4th Cir. No. 26-1071)	Within the § 984 year, an entire business-account balance was forfeitable, including money deposited before the fraud (CAFRA civil)
March 17, 2026	All Virtual Currency Seized from One MEXC Account Ending in 8248 (D.D.C.)	Voluntary exchange freezes, then in rem forfeiture under § 981(a)(1)(C)
June 1, 2026	Kontos (D. Ariz.)	Untainted funds ordered returned from a criminal § 853(f) seizure
June 30, 2026	Robertson (E.D. Ky.)	No hardship release in criminal forfeiture (§ 983 is civil only)
July 27, 2026	31 C.F.R. § 501.603 amended	A request to file an unblocking or transfer report by alternative means now goes to an OFAC email address rather than a telephone number; a bank’s initial blocking report is still due within 10 business days (sanctions, not forfeiture)
August 2026	United States v. Shah (7th Cir.)	A criminal defendant must challenge a pretrial restraint within a reasonable period; a late challenge gets plain-error review

Related Pages

• federal asset forfeiture attorney: civil and criminal forfeiture from seizure to judgment, including the statutory deadlines, Supplemental Rule G, and paying for a lawyer under Luis and Kaley.
• notice of seizure: which agency and statute you are dealing with, the choice between a claim and a petition for remission, and the deadline on each track.
• motion for return of property: getting property back when agents took it and no forfeiture case has started.
• criminal forfeiture: forfeiture as part of a sentence, including the Rule 32.2 sequence, money judgments, substitute assets and appeals.
• innocent owner defense: the rights of spouses, co-owners, business partners and lenders in civil and criminal cases.
• money laundering: the laundering statutes, and structuring as a separate offense.
• federal investigation attorney: the investigative stage, from the first subpoena or target letter onward.
• SEC investigation: the civil enforcement process in which SEC asset freezes arise.
• white collar crime lawyer: defense of the fraud and financial-crime charges that can accompany an account seizure.

Why Work With Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C.

Elizabeth Franklin-Best is ranked by Chambers USA 2026 in Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (Band 2, South Carolina) and recognized by Best Lawyers in America 2027 in Criminal Defense: White Collar, as well as in Appellate Practice and Criminal Defense: General Practice. Both are independent recognitions. She founded Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. in 2019 as a boutique federal criminal defense and appellate firm: a national federal practice run on an intentionally small caseload, with offices in Columbia and Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, serving clients nationwide.

• More than 20 years of federal and appellate criminal defense experience
• More than 330 federal proceedings, over 100 of them appeals, and sixteen published decisions as counsel of record
• Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and twelve of the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals — every regional circuit (1st–11th) plus the D.C. Circuit
• Admitted pro hac vice in federal courts from Montana to Florida
• Co-author of “Harjo v. City of Albuquerque: A Road Map for Challenging Government Forfeiture Programs” (with David B. Smith), The Champion (NACDL), May 2019
• Author of Reversing Your Criminal Conviction: Develop Your Winning Strategy (2023)

Schedule a Consultation

An emergency restraining order entered without notice expires within 14 days unless extended (§ 983(j)(3) civil; § 853(e)(2) criminal), and a seizure notice prints its own claim deadline, so advice is most useful while those dates are still ahead. To discuss your situation with Elizabeth Franklin-Best, schedule a consultation or call (843) 620-1100. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship; it is general information, not legal advice for your case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Bank Account Seizures

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·October 2026