PRESS
Contact Mr. Kessler at:
Mr. Steven L. Kessler
Law Offices of Steven L. Kessler
The Chanin Building
Suite 606
122 East 42 Street
New York, NY 10168-0699
212-661-1500
Email: kessleronforfeiture@msn.com |
|
|
|
|
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000
Steven L. Kessler
On April 25, 2000, President Clinton
signed into law The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
Act of 2000 (HR 1658), Pub. L. No. 106-185, 106th Cong. (2000),
changing the face of federal
civil forfeiture for the first time since the First Continental
Congress. The Act is a major step
toward reforming the federal forfeiture system and applies to
all forfeiture proceedings
commenced on or after August 23, 2000. The Act is not,
however, a comprehensive re-evaluation of civil forfeiture. Instead, it addresses
specific problems that both the government and
the defense bar have repeatedly encountered, attempting to
create solutions acceptable to both
sides. It is a series of practical fixes of specific
problems that have been raised during the past
decade. Accordingly, to return forfeiture to its pure and
proper form, where the motivation
underlying the process is not one of greed and fund-raising,
requires revision of the system itself,
an agenda left unaddressed by the tweakings to the statutes made
by the Reform Act. For the
moment, as with any compromise, the Act leaves both sides
somewhat dissatisfied. Prosecutors
and police organizations, reaping the benefits of the law prior
to this Act, adopted the adage "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it," while the defense bar often
felt it was conceding too much for little in
return. In the end, the Act appears to carry through a
large part of the reform agenda without
limiting law enforcement's use of forfeiture as an effective
tool against crime.
i. Procedures & Deadlines
The heart of the Act is Section 2 (18
USC 983), which establishes the general
procedures and deadlines that must be followed and provides
remedies where the government fails
to adhere to these rules. Within this section is the
provision that the burden of proof, which is
placed on the government, now must be established by a
preponderance of the evidence. (2(c)).
The government must show that the property is subject to
forfeiture. Merely bringing suit does
not, by itself, establish the government's automatic entitlement
to its day in court. This is a
substantial change, which applies to all civil forfeiture cases
covered by the Act. Excluded from
the Reform Act are the civil forfeiture statutes codified in
Title 19 and Title 26 (Customs and IRs
forfeitures) as well as The Food and Drug Cosmetic Act (21 USC
301), The Trading With The
Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1), and The Neutrality Act of
June 15, 1917 (22 USC 401).
Section 2 also includes one of the most
important concessions of the Justice
Department
the abolition of the dreaded cost bond.
(2(a)). Previously, a claimant was required to submit
a cost bond (usually ten percent of the value of the seized
property) as a prerequisite for
defending against the forfeiture of his or her property.
The abolition of this bond enables
claimants to bring suit without having to "pay to
play," thereby opening the court system to those
who might not otherwise have access.
While the Reform Act makes it easier
for a claimant to have his day in court, 2(h)
establishes a civil fine of up to $5,000 that may be imposed in
a civil forfeiture proceeding when
the court finds the claimant's assertion of an interest in the
property to be frivolous. Additionally,
a prisoner who has brought an action or appeal in a federal
court on three occasions, and on each
time was rejected, is barred from challenging a civil asset
forfeiture unless the prisoner shows
extraordinary and exceptional circumstances
The government is also no longer given
the power to delay the commencement of
proceedings as long as it likes after seizing someone's
property. Written notice must be sent "as
soon as practicable," but no later than 60 days after the
seizure. (2(a)). Note that there are
exceptions to this requirement, including a) If the government
does not file a civil forfeiture
action, but brings a criminal indictment containing an
allegation that the property is subject to
forfeiture, and sends notice of this indictment within 60 days;
b) If the property is seized by a
State or local agency, then jurisdiction is transferred to
federal authorities, notice must be sent
within 90 days; c) If the party who owns the property is not
identified, the 60 day time period will
not begin to toll until the owner is identified; and d) Upon
motion by the government, 60 day
extensions may be granted by the Court. But, as a rule, the
government cannot simply hold the
property until it is ready to proceed. This is an
important change and, if the government fails to
live up to its obligation, the claimant may very well be able to
overturn the forfeiture.
ii. The Innocent Owner Defense
To file a claim, a claimant must show
that he is an "owner" within the definition of the
Act. The Act defines an owner as "a person with an
ownership or possessory interest in the
specific property sought to be forfeited - including a
leasehold, lien, mortgage, recorded security
interest, or valid assignment of an ownership interest."
The term "owner" does not apply to a) a
person with only a general unsecured interest in the property,
b) a bailee, and c) a nominee who
exercises no dominion or control over the property. 18 USC
981(d)(6)(A)(B).
A claimant may prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that he is an innocent owner.
Section 2(d) of the Act creates a uniform innocent owner
defense. The new definition is narrower
than that currently codified in 21 USC 881(a) and 18 USC
981(a)(2). In deciding whether a
claimant meets this definition, the court must first determine
when the party acquired the interest
in the property. If the interest was acquired prior to the
activity underlying the forfeiture, an
innocent owner would be someone who 1) did not know of the
conduct giving rise to the
forfeiture, or 2) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to
the forfeiture, did all that could
reasonably be expected under the circumstances to terminate such
use of the property. If the
person acquired an interest in the property after the conduct
giving rise to the forfeiture, he would
have to demonstrate that he 1) was a bona fide purchaser or
seller for value, and 2) did not know
and was reasonably without cause to believe that the property
was subject to forfeiture.
If the owner has given nothing of value
in exchange for the property, then his status as
"innocent" becomes irrelevant. There are
exceptions to the requirement that something of value
be given for the property, if 1) the property is the primary
residence of the claimant, 2) depriving
the claimant of the property would deprive claimant of the means
to maintain reasonable shelter in
the community for claimant and his/her dependents, 3) the
property is not, and is not traceable to
the proceeds of any crime, and 4) the claimant acquired his
interest through marriage, divorce or
legal separation, or claimant was a legal dependent of a person
whose death resulted in the
transfer of the property to claimant via inheritance or probate.
Further, the court is required to limit
the value of any real property to the value necessary
to maintain reasonable shelter in the community for the claimant
and all of his or her dependents
residing therein. Of course, no person may assert an
ownership interest in contraband or any
substance that is illegal to posses. Finally, if a
claimant has only a partial interest in that property,
the court may sever that interest, transfer the property to the
government, provided that the
claimant is compensated in the event a forfeiture order is
entered (essentially buying out the
claimant's interest), or allow the innocent owner to retain the
property subject to a lien in favor of
the government to the extent of the forfeitable interest.
iii. Excessive Fines
Along the lines of defenses, Section
2(g) implements the Supreme Court's decision in
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), allowing the
claimant in the civil forfeiture
proceeding to show, as an affirmative defense, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the
forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the offense. If
the court agrees with the claimant, it will
either reduce or eliminate the forfeiture as necessary to avoid
a violation of the Excessive Fines
Clause of the Eighth Amendment. 18 USC 981(g).
The burden of proof, as with any
affirmative defense, is on the claimant.
iv. Claimant's Actions & Rights
Section 3 of the Act amends the Federal
Tort Claims Act (28 USC 2680(c)), waiving
sovereign immunity for claims based on injury to or loss of
property while in the possession of the
government if the property was seized for the purpose of civil
forfeiture, and subsequently not
forfeited. This is an important change, as it forces the
government to seriously weigh the benefits
of forfeiting any piece of property. If the government
proceeds, fails, and damages the property
in the process, it will be held liable.
The Act
also addresses the reverse scenario. Section 12 amends 18
USC 2232 and
provides that any person who, before, during or after any search
for or seizure of property by an
authorized party, knowingly damages, wastes, disposes of, or
transfers property or knowingly
attempts to stop the government, "for the purpose of
preventing," from seizing or continuing to
control the property, shall be fined and be subject to up to
five years in prison, or both. The same
punishments apply in in rem proceedings and the execution of
warrants. This amendment is
vague, and will likely require clarification for the courts.
v. Attorneys' Fees
Another
major addition to the Act relates to attorneys' fees. An
attorney who accepts
a case in which his client substantially prevails is entitled to
(1) reasonable attorneys' fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred by the claimant, (2)
post-judgment interest, and (3) any
interest actually paid or imputed to the government.
Interest, however, only applies to cases
involving currency, negotiable instruments or the proceeds of an
interlocutory sale. 28 USC
2465, amended by 4 of the Act.
In addition to those clients who retain
counsel, the Act permits the courts to authorize
counsel to represent an indigent claimant with standing in a
judicial civil forfeiture proceeding if
the claimant is already represented by a court-appointed
attorney in connection with a related
federal criminal case. (2(b)). In addition, the
court is directed to insure that an indigent claimant
whose primary residence is subject to civil forfeiture is
represented by an attorney for the Legal
Services Corporation. The Legal Services Corporation is
paid by the government, regardless of
the outcome of the litigation, at rates equivalent to those paid
under the Criminal Justice Act.
These provisions will hopefully reduce the number of uncontested
forfeitures, which currently
represent approximately 80 percent of all forfeiture cases.
Additionally, if the claimant is
convicted of a crime for which the interest of the claimant
in the property was subject to forfeiture under a Federal
criminal forfeiture law, the government is
relieved of its obligation to compensate the claimant. If
there are multiple claims to the property,
the government will not be liable for costs and attorneys fees
if it (1) promptly recognizes the
claim, (2) promptly returns to the claimant his interest in the
property, if the property can be
divided without difficulty and there are no competing claims to
that portion of the property, (3)
does not cause the claimant to incur additional, reasonable
costs or fees, and (4) prevails in
obtaining forfeiture with respect to one or more of the other
claims. If the Court enters a
judgment in part for the claimant and in part for the
Government, attorneys' fees will be reduced
accordingly.
There are exceptions for when the
government is obliged to pay attorney fees and costs.
If the government agrees to recognize a claimant's interest in
the property without causing the
claimant to incur additional reasonable fees and expenses, it
will have no obligation to compensate
the claimant for costs and fees. This out for the
government will undoubtedly be used when it
feels it will not prevail.
vi. Warrant and Seizure Requirements
Section 5 of the Act addresses the
Seizure Warrant Requirement, establishing that seizures
made under the section must be made pursuant to a warrant,
obtained in the same manner as
provided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. There are,
however, a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement.
A seizure may be made without a
warrant if a complaint for forfeiture has been filed in the
federal District Court and the court has
issued an arrest warrant, in rem, pursuant to the Supplemental
Rules for Certain Admiralty and
Maritime Claims. Additionally, if there is probable cause
to believe that the property is subject to
forfeiture and the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest
or search, the warrant requirement is
waived. Finally, if the property was lawfully seized by a
State or local law enforcement agency
and transferred to a federal agency, a warrant need not be
issued.
Section 5(b)(3) provides the claimant
with flexibility with regard to making a motion for
the return of seized property. Despite the government
strongly lobbying for a rule requiring the
movant to litigate in the district court where the seizure
warrant was issued, a motion for the
return of seized property may be filed either in the district
court in which the warrant was issued
or in the district court for the district in which the property
was seized.
Section 5(b)(4)(a) authorizes the
Attorney General to apply for an ex parte order
restraining property subject to forfeiture under 981 or
under the Controlled Substances Act.
This authorization applies to the arrest or charging of a person
in a foreign country, "for such time
as is necessary to receive evidence from the foreign country or
elsewhere in support of probable
cause for the seizure of the property under this
subsection."
Additionally, Section 7 of the Act
implements the Supreme Court's decision in United
States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993),
holding that real property may
be seized only by the least restrictive means and, except in
exigent circumstances, only after giving
the property owner prior notice and an opportunity for an
adversarial hearing. All forfeitures of
real property also must proceed as judicial forfeitures.
vii. Claimant Retaining his Property or Securing its Return
Under Section 2(f), a claimant may
retain possession of his property during the pendency
of a forfeiture action or may be entitled to the immediate
release of the property if the
circumstances demonstrate hardship. Property will remain
in or revert to the claimant's custody if
(a) the claimant has a possessory interest in the property, (b)
the claimant has sufficient ties to the
community to provide assurances that the property will be
available at the time of trial, (c) the
continued possession of the property by the government would
cause substantial hardship to the
claimant, (d) the claimant's hardship outweighs the risk that
the property will be destroyed,
damaged, lost, concealed or transferred if it is returned to the
claimant, (e) the seized property is
not contraband, currency or another monetary instrument or
electronic funds, unless it is the
assets of a legitimate business which has been seized, (f) the
seized property is not to be used as
evidence of a violation of the law, (g) the seized property is
not by reason of design or other
characteristics suited for use in illegal activities, and (h)
the seized property is not likely to be used
to commit additional criminal acts if returned.
If the requisite criteria are
satisfied, the claimant may then make a request to the party
that
has physical possession of the property. If a response is
not received within 15 days, the claimant
may bring a petition to the District Court in which the
government originally filed its complaint.
The court must then rule on the petition within 30 days, unless
it has good cause to extend the
deadline. A ruling in favor of the claimant will result in
the court issuing an order returning the
property to the claimant, although the court may also enter any
order necessary to ensure that the
value of the property is maintained. This includes
permitting the inspection, photographing and
inventory of the property, fixing a bond in accordance with Rule
E(5) of the Supplemental Rules,
or requiring the claimant to obtain or maintain insurance on the
property.
If a claimant prevails, the property
subject to forfeiture will be returned forthwith to the
claimant or his agent. The claimant will also be entitled
to reasonable attorneys' fees and other
incurred litigation costs. Post-judgment interest will be
awarded at the rate applicable to the 30-
day Treasury Bill on any money that was held by the court
Further, unless the government or its
agents can show that there was reasonable cause for the seizure,
the person responsible and the
prosecutor may be liable to suits or judgments against them.
As mentioned above, the Act
specifically amends the Federal Torts Claim Act (28 USC
2680(c) to waive sovereign immunity
for claims based upon injury or loss of the property in the
possession of the government if the
property was seized for the purpose of civil forfeiture (as
opposed to criminal forfeiture) and not
forfeited.
The flip side of the coin is that, if
the government prevails on the forfeiture, it may
compensate "any victim of the offense giving rise to
forfeiture, including, in the case of a money
laundering offense, any offense constituting the underlying
specified unlawful activity." 18 USC
981(6).
viii. Staying a
Civil Forfeiture Proceeding
Section 8, amending 18 USC
981(g), instructs a court when it should stay a civil
forfeiture proceeding pursuant to a motion by the government or
the claimant. Upon motion of
the government, the court shall stay the forfeiture proceeding
if it determines that civil discovery
would adversely affect the availability of the government to
conduct a related criminal
investigation, or hinder the prosecution of a related criminal
case.
If the motion for a stay is made by the
claimant, a stay will be granted if the court
determines that (a) the claimant is the subject of a related
criminal investigation or case, (b) the
claimant has standing to assert a claim in the civil forfeiture
proceeding, and (c) the continuation
of the forfeiture proceeding will burden the right of the
claimant against self-incrimination in the
related investigation or case. Regardless of the moving party,
should the court decide that a
protective order limiting discovery would be sufficient, it may
so order without issuing a stay.
ix. Preserving Property for Litigation
Section 9
expands the options available to the courts, allowing them to
enter restraining
orders, require the execution of performance bonds, create
receiverships, appoint conservators, or
take other actions to secure or preserve the availability of
property subject to civil forfeiture. The
language used in this section is the same as that used in
criminal forfeiture statutes, and while a
performance bond bears a striking resemblance to the cost bond,
the difference here is that the
bond is not dictated by statute. There is no requirement
for a bond, and the issuance of one is
within the discretion of the court.
x. Government Obligations & Responsibilities
Section 11 of the Act amends 19 USC
1621, giving the government two years from the
discovery of the alleged offense involving the property, or five
years from the time the alleged
offense was discovered, whichever is later, to file a civil
forfeiture action in court. The two-year
clock begins to run once the government is aware of facts that
should trigger an investigation
leading to discovery of the involvement of the property in the
offense. Without this amendment,
there would effectively be no statute of limitations.
The claimant has five years from the
date of final publication of the notice of seizure to file
a motion to set aside an administrative forfeiture that was not
properly noticed. (2(e)). This
motion will be granted if the government knew, or reasonably
should have known, of the moving
party's interest and failed to take reasonable steps to provide
notice, and where the moving party
did not know or have reason to know of the seizure within
sufficient time to file a timely claim.
Even if the court grants the claimant's motion, however, there
is no guarantee that the forfeited
property will be returned. For nonjudicial forfeitures,
the government has 60 days from the entry
of the order granting the motion to refile a claim, while that
time is extended to six months for
judicial forfeitures. Unless a law specifies otherwise,
all civil forfeitures of real property and
interests in real property are judicial forfeitures. A
nonjudicial forfeiture would be one initiated by
an administrative agency, such as U.S. Customs.
Additionally, criminal prosecutors are
now able to share grand jury information with the
Assistants handling the civil forfeiture proceedings.
(10). Prior to this amendment, a court
order, under F.R.C.P. Rule 6(e), was required for such an
exchange of information. This
amendment to 18 USC 3322(a) dispenses with the
requirement.
Finally, Section 13 amends 18 USC
984, allowing the government to rely on a fungible
money or monetary instruments theory in any civil forfeiture
case, not just money laundering and
structuring cases. Additionally, "precious
metals" is added to the category of fungible property,
while deleting the catch-all phrase "or other fungible
property."
xi. Criminal Forfeiture
Contained within the Civil Forfeiture
Reform Act is a provision "Encouraging the Use of
Criminal Forfeiture as an Alternative to Civil Forfeiture."
Section 16, 28 USC 2461(c),
authorizes criminal forfeiture for any offense for which
Congress has authorized civil forfeiture.
Thus, the availability of criminal forfeiture is greatly
expanded. The Act does not, however,
attempt to reform criminal forfeiture. That has been
accomplished through changes to the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure that have been approved by the
Supreme Court, which are scheduled
to go into effect on December 1, 2000.
Under the new rules, the government
will not have to prove to a jury that the assets in
question belong to the defendant. Rather, the government
will only have to prove its case to a
judge in an "ancillary hearing" in which the defendant
cannot participate. Third parties may
participate in the hearing, but the burden of showing ownership
of any or all of the property falls
squarely upon the third party. If he cannot show ownership
at least in part, the property may be
forfeited without the defendant ever being given an opportunity
to contest the forfeiture. This
provision reeks of unconstitutionality.
Because these changes were made through
procedural rules, and not by legislation, no
vote was taken by Congress. This creates a bizarre
situation. Through the Reform Act, Congress
has shown its intent to create a fairer process for civil
forfeiture. Yet, the government, now
having the ability to pursue criminal forfeiture in any instance
in which it could pursue civil
forfeiture, is creating a near impossible burden on defendants
in criminal forfeiture cases.
Unwittingly, Congress may have succeeded in sounding the death
knell for civil forfeiture. Why
would the government pursue a civil forfeiture action, with all
its incumbent rules and regulations,
when it might just as easily bring a criminal forfeiture action,
where the cards are all stacked in its
favor? If and when the proposed rules changes go into
effect, Congress will once again be called
upon to reform the rules.
xii. Proceeds
The Act makes it a point to
define the term "proceeds." Section 20 defines
proceeds in
three situations:
a. In cases involving illegal goods or services,
unlawful activities and telemarketing and
health care fraud schemes, "proceeds" is defined as
property of any kind
obtained
directly or indirectly, as the result of the commission of the
offense giving
rise to
the forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not
limited to the
gain or
profit realized from the offense.
b. In cases involving lawful good or services that
are sold or provided in an illegal
manner,
the term "proceeds" means the amount of money acquired
through the
illegal
transactions resulting in the forfeiture, less the direct costs
incurred in
providing
the goods or services. The claimant shall have the burden
of proof with
respect
to the issue of direct costs. The direct costs shall not
include any part of
the
overhead expenses of the entity providing the goods or services,
or any part of
the
income taxes paid by the entity.
c. In cases involving fraud in the process of
obtaining a loan or extension of credit,
the court
shall allow the claimant a deduction from the forfeiture to the
extent that
the loan
was repaid, or the debt was satisfied, without any financial
loss to the
victim.
These definitions permit civil
forfeiture for any offense constituting "specified unlawful
activity," or a conspiracy to commit such offense. As
a result of this change, any money
laundering predicate offense will now support proceeds
forfeiture without the need to charge or
prove money laundering activity. The addition of
telemarketing and health care fraud schemes to
subparagraph (a) places the Act in accordance with its criminal
counterpart, in which the
government is authorized to forfeit "gross proceeds"
of telemarketing and federal health care
offenses. 18 USC 982(a)(7)-(8).
xiii. Civil Forfeiture in the
International Arena
Returning to the Reform Act,
Section 15 encourages international cooperation in
forfeiture cases by creating a procedure for foreign states to
have their forfeiture or confiscation
judgments enforced in the United States against assets found
here.
Further, regarding the fugitive
disentitlement doctrine, the Act states that a judicial officer
may disallow a person from using the resources of the American
courts in furtherance of a claim
if, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or
process has been issued for his
apprehension, in order to avoid criminal prosecution, the
fugitive (a) purposely leaves the
jurisdiction of the United States, (b) declines to enter or
re-enter the country to submit to its
jurisdiction, or (c) otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the
court in which the criminal case is
pending against him. The fugitive must also not be
confined or held in custody in any other
jurisdiction for commission of criminal conduct in that
jurisdiction.
In any
civil forfeiture case, or in any ancillary proceeding in a
criminal forfeiture case
governed by section 413(n) of the Controlled Substances Act,
where financial records located in a
foreign country may be material, notwithstanding secrecy laws,
the refusal of the claimant to
provide the records in response to a discovery request or to
take action necessary otherwise to
make the records available shall be grounds for judicial
sanctions, up to and including dismissal of
the claim with prejudice.
Further, Section 18 amends 8 USC
1324(b) to allow forfeiture of the "gross proceeds"
of a violation of 1324(a) (forfeiting conveyances used to
facilitate alien smuggling offenses), and
to make it easier for the government to prove that an alien
involved in the alleged violation "had
not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or
reside in the United States or that
such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United
States in violation of law."
xiv. Public Access
Finally, the Attorney General is
required to submit to Congress, and make available to the
public, detailed reports for each prior fiscal year. Such
a report should include total deposits,
expenses paid, types and amounts of property forfeited, and
other relevant information. The
report must be made available no later than four months after
the end of each fiscal year. Audited financial statements
must also be made available to Congress and the public within
two months of
the end of the fiscal year. In keeping with the times, the
Attorney General may satisfy this
requirement by posting the reports on an Internet website
maintained by the Department of Justice
for a period of not less than 2 years, and by notifying the
House and Senate Committees on the
Judiciary when the reports are available electronically.
________________
Steven L. Kessler practices white collar criminal law in New York and is counsel to Kessler & Kessler in Manhattan. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Kessler was head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the Bronx District Attorney's Office in New York, where he supervised and
litigated all phases of forfeiture and related matters. In that capacity, he served as a member of the Forfeiture Law Advisory Group of the New York State District Attorney's Association.
Mr. Kessler has written and lectured extensively on topics relating to forfeiture. He is the author of "Civil and Criminal Forfeiture: Federal and State Practice" (West Group 1993 & Supp. 1998), a 3 volume treatise covering the forfeiture and RICO statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia and the major federal forfeiture provisions, and is the author of the forthcoming "New York Criminal and Civil Forfeitures" (Gould Publishing 1998). Mr. Kessler is a contributor to the New York Law Journal on issues relating to forfeiture and is the author and Revisions Editor of eight chapters in Weinstein, Korn & Miller's "New York Civil Practice," including the chapter "New York Forfeiture". He is widely quoted and cited in court opinions and media of legal and general circulation nationwide.
A graduate of the Cornell Law School, Mr. Kessler serves as a member of the House of Delegates of the New York State Bar Association and as editor of One on One, the publication of the 5,000-member General Practice Section of which Mr. Kessler is an officer. He is a member of the White Collar Crime Committee and the RICO, Forfeitures and Civil Remedies Committees of the American Bar Association, the Criminal Justice Section of the New York State Bar Association, and the Forfeiture Abuse Task Force of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and serves as co-chair the Forfeiture Law subcommittee of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. An Adjunct Professor of Law at New York Law
School, Mr. Kessler is listed in Who's Who in American Law.
Mr. Kessler is a member of the New York and Connecticut Bars and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court.
|
|
