Skip to main content
S 642 115th Congress Senate Crime and Law Enforcement Civil actions and liability Congressional oversight Criminal investigation, prosecution, interrogation Criminal procedure and sentencing Currency Customs enforcement Drug trafficking and controlled substances Evidence and witnesses Fraud offenses and financial crimes Government trust funds

FAIR Act

Introduced: March 15, 2017 Introduced by: Paul, Rand Republican · Kentucky See on congress.gov
 Everywhere this bill has been 2 steps
Introduced
In committee
Reported out
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became law
Mar 15, 2017
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mar 15, 2017
Introduced in Senate
 Plain-English summary Congressional Research Service

Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2017 or the FAIR Act

This bill modifies general rules governing civil forfeiture proceedings to: (1) ensure that a person contesting a civil forfeiture has legal representation without regard to whether the property subject to forfeiture is being used by such person as a primary residence; (2) increase the federal government's burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings to clear and convincing evidence; (3) require the government, in addition to showing a substantial connection between the seized property and an offense, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the owner of any interest in the seized property used the property with intent to facilitate the offense or knowingly consented or was willfully blind to the use of the property by another in connection with the offense; and (4) expand the proportionality criteria used by a court to determine whether a civil forfeiture was constitutionally excessive.

To remove incentives for carrying out civil forfeitures, the bill requires proceeds from the disposition of seized property to be deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury, rather than to Department of Justice accounts for law enforcement activities.

The bill adds a mens rea requirement (i.e., a knowing violation) to the prohibition against structuring financial transactions to evade reporting requirements.

A court shall conduct a probable cause hearing to determine if there is a violation of the prohibition against structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements involving a monetary instrument and to return such instrument if probable cause is not established.

What's happening now March 15, 2017

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

 Committees of jurisdiction 1