Fourth Circuit En Banc Decision in United States v. Chamberlain Strengthens Protections Against Pretrial Forfeiture of Innocent Assets

Partner Elliot Sol Abrams won a landmark asset forfeiture decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Chamberlain, No. 16-4313. In a unanimous en banc opinion, the Fourth Circuit overruled its prior precedent and held that the federal criminal forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 853(e), does not authorize the pretrial restraint of a defendant’s innocent “substitute assets” that are not traceable to the alleged offense.

Before Chamberlain, the Fourth Circuit stood alone among federal appellate courts in allowing the government to freeze untainted assets before trial under Section 853, based on the view that those assets could later be forfeited as “substitute property” if directly forfeitable proceeds were unavailable. In practice, this meant that people accused of crimes could see their legitimate savings, business interests, or other lawfully obtained assets frozen long before any conviction—often impairing their ability to hire counsel of choice or support their families while the case was pending.

In its published opinion, the Fourth Circuit carefully examined the text and structure of Section 853, as well as decisions from other circuits and guidance from the Supreme Court. The court ultimately concluded that Section 853(e) authorizes pretrial restraint only of property “described in Section 853(a)”—that is, tainted property directly connected to the alleged offense—and not untainted substitute assets. The court expressly overruled its earlier cases that had permitted pretrial restraint of substitute property and vacated the restraining order entered against the defendant’s innocent assets.

The Chamberlain decision brought the Fourth Circuit into alignment with the overwhelming majority of federal courts and significantly strengthened protections for individuals facing federal charges whose lawfully obtained property had previously been at risk of being frozen before trial. The ruling also clarified important statutory limits on the government’s forfeiture powers and reinforced the principle that untainted assets should not be restrained absent clear congressional authorization.

Elliot’s work in this case reflects the firm’s broader commitment to challenging overreach in asset forfeiture and defending clients’ property rights at every stage of a criminal investigation or prosecution. Cheshire Parker Schneider & Abrams continues to litigate forfeiture issues in trial and appellate courts, seeking to protect clients’ ability to maintain control over their assets and mount a full defense