United States v. Timley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[u]nder the relation-back doctrine, title to the forfeited property vests in the United States at the time of the defendant’s criminal act”
• holding that title and ownership of forfeited property vests in the United States at the time the defendant’s criminal act occurred
• observing that “the term ‘legal interest’ encompasses only legally protected rights, not equitable rights”
• satisfying the “reasonably without cause to believe” element “creates a problem for defense attorneys who perform services in return for criminal proceeds.”
• “If the [petitioner] has no interest-under state- law, the inquiry ends, and the claim fails for lack of standing.”
• “As- the court in Hooper explained, the proceeds of an offense do not exist before the offense is committed, and when they come into existence, the government’s interest under the relation-back doctrine immediately vests.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).