Ninth Circuit Rules on Civil Forfeiture and Due Process
A US appeals court threw out a civil forfeiture order in September 2026, ruling that federal courts cannot seize foreign bank accounts without first proving they actually control the assets. The Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Nasri sets a constitutional limit on how far US courts can reach into overseas finances. For anyone with foreign assets caught up in a US legal action, the ruling changes the rules of the game.
A federal appeals court vacated a lower court's forfeiture order in September 2026, ruling that a US district court cannot seize assets held in a foreign bank unless it first establishes actual or constructive control over that property. The Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Nasri sets a new due process standard for civil forfeiture cases involving assets held abroad.
What happened in this case
Younes Nasri, a Canadian citizen living in Dubai, was indicted on federal racketeering and drug conspiracy charges. The government alleged that his company, Phantom Secure, sold encrypted phones to criminals worldwide — including in Southern California. Prosecutors then filed a civil forfeiture action (a legal process where the government tries to take ownership of property it claims was used in or gained from a crime) targeting over $1.2 million held in two accounts at Bendura Bank AG in Liechtenstein. Nasri never appeared in court, and the district court struck his claim to the assets under the fugitive disentitlement statute — a law that lets the government remove a fugitive's legal claims in a forfeiture case.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Roopali Desai held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires a court to have control — or at least constructive control — over property before it can exercise in rem jurisdiction (legal authority over the property itself, not just the person). Because the district court never evaluated whether it had any such control over the Liechtenstein accounts, its order violated the Constitution. The case was sent back to the lower court to make that determination. Judge Jay Bybee agreed, adding that proceeding without the property in hand makes the case premature. Judge Mark Bennett dissented, arguing the majority's ruling undermines the government's ability to fight organized crime across borders and conflicts with existing Supreme Court precedent.
Why this matters beyond one case
This ruling affects how US courts can pursue assets held in foreign countries. For immigrants and foreign nationals with financial ties to the US, it clarifies that a US court cannot simply claim authority over overseas bank accounts without meeting a constitutional threshold. The decision does not end the Nasri case — it sends it back for further review — but it limits the government's reach in similar forfeiture actions going forward.
What to do
- If you or a family member has assets in a foreign bank and faces a US criminal or civil forfeiture action, consult an immigration and criminal defense attorney immediately — these cases can affect your ability to remain in the US or re-enter.
- Do not ignore court notices about forfeiture proceedings. Failing to appear can trigger the fugitive disentitlement statute, which strips your right to contest the seizure.
- Ask your attorney whether the court has actual control over the assets in question — after this ruling, that is now a required legal finding before forfeiture can proceed.
- Follow updates from the Ninth Circuit and the Southern District of California if you have a pending forfeiture case involving overseas accounts.
Related: our step-by-step guide — “Immigration Court Rulings”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
This ruling is significant for any foreign national facing a US civil forfeiture action tied to overseas accounts. Under the Ninth Circuit's new standard, your attorney should immediately challenge whether the court has actual or constructive control over the property — if it does not, the court lacks jurisdiction and the forfeiture cannot proceed. Missing court appearances remains extremely dangerous: the fugitive disentitlement statute can eliminate your ability to contest the seizure entirely, so consult a qualified attorney before making any decision about appearing or not appearing in a US proceeding.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is civil forfeiture and how can it affect me?
Civil forfeiture is a legal process where the US government tries to take ownership of property it claims was connected to a crime — even if you have not been convicted. It can target bank accounts, real estate, or other assets. You have the right to file a claim contesting the forfeiture, but you must do so through the court.
Can the US government seize my foreign bank account?
After the Ninth Circuit's September 2026 ruling, a US court must first show it has actual or constructive control over your foreign account before it can legally proceed with forfeiture. If the court cannot establish that control, the forfeiture action may be thrown out — but you still need an attorney to raise that argument.
What happens if I don't show up to a US court hearing about my assets?
The government can use the fugitive disentitlement statute to strike your claim entirely. That means you lose your legal right to contest the seizure, and the court can proceed without hearing your side. Lawyers strongly advise against skipping court dates in forfeiture cases.
Does this ruling affect immigration status or deportation cases?
This specific ruling is about civil forfeiture jurisdiction, not deportation or green card cases directly. However, a criminal indictment connected to a forfeiture action can have serious immigration consequences, including bars to naturalization, green card denial, or removal proceedings. Anyone in this situation should consult both a criminal defense attorney and an immigration lawyer.