Property and process / K1
Cash seized without charge
Police find 20,000 USD in cash in the person's car at a traffic stop. They charge no crime.
What we score
Can the state keep the money, and who has to prove what?
Default assumptions: Unless a vignette says otherwise, the person is a 30-year-old citizen of sound mind with no criminal record, acting alone, on their own behalf and not for profit, in an ordinary residential area. Where subnational units (states, provinces, cantons, Länder) make their own law, each unit is scored and the result is weighted by population. 'The state' includes police, prosecutors, courts, regulators, tax authorities and anyone acting on their orders, including platforms obeying takedown orders.
Score anchors
Both the law score and the practice score use these anchors. Half points are used when a country sits between two of them.
| Score | What it means for this vignette |
|---|---|
| 10 | No seizure without a criminal charge. |
| 8 | Seizure needs a court order; the money is returned promptly if no charge follows. |
| 6 | Civil forfeiture possible, but the state must prove criminal origin to a high standard. |
| 4 | Civil forfeiture on a balance of probabilities; the owner must litigate to recover. |
| 3 | Administrative forfeiture by default unless the owner sues; often costlier than the sum. |
| 0 | Arbitrary confiscation. |
Evidence used: Civil and administrative forfeiture laws; burden of proof; forfeiture volumes; equitable sharing.
How each country scores
| Country | Law | Practice | Process | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 7 | 7 | 0 | 7.0 | Money can be seized only within criminal proceedings, which may be at the pre-charge 'prověřování' stage. Seizure requires facts suggesting it is an instrument or proceeds of crime (Criminal Procedure Code § 79a), ordered by police with prosecutor consent, not a judge, and open to complaint. It must be returned once no longer needed (§ 80). No civil forfeiture applies to a sum this size: the 2026 government bill on unexplained-wealth confiscation sets a 1 million CZK threshold and requires a court decision. |
| Denmark | 7 | 7 | 0 | 7.0 | Police can seize property only from someone reasonably suspected of a publicly prosecuted offence, to secure evidence or later confiscation (retsplejeloven § 802). Seizure is decided by court order, or by police in urgent cases subject to court review within 24 hours on the owner's request (§ 806). Confiscation itself requires a court decision under straffeloven §§ 75-76 a. There is no administrative or civil forfeiture, so cash taken without a charge must be returned. |
| Switzerland | 7 | 7 | −0.5 | 6.5 | Switzerland has no civil or administrative forfeiture. Cash can be seized only within criminal proceedings by written prosecutor order (Criminal Procedure Code Art. 263), which can be appealed to a court, and must be returned once the grounds lapse (Art. 267). Forfeiture requires a court to find the assets come from or were meant for an offence (Criminal Code Art. 70). Cash found on a traveller can still be held for months while prosecutors investigate suspected money laundering. |
| Singapore | 4 | 6 | 0 | 5.2 | Under CPC s35, police may seize any property suspected to be connected to an offence without a court order or a charge. Under s370 they need report the seizure to a court only when it is no longer needed or after one year. The court then decides who is entitled to it and may keep holding it while any investigation is pending. Owners whose cash is not linked to a crime usually get it back after investigation, but only after months. |
| Netherlands | 6 | 5 | −0.5 | 4.9 | There is no civil forfeiture. Police and prosecutors can seize cash without a court order as evidence or for possible confiscation once there is suspicion, typically of money laundering (arts. 94 and 116 Sv). Confiscation itself requires a criminal conviction (arts. 33a and 36e Sr). If no charge follows, the money must be returned once the criminal-investigation interest ends, but the owner may need to file a complaint (beklag, art. 552a Sv) to force its return, and owners are often pressed to explain where the cash came from. |
| Germany | 5 | 5 | −1 | 4.0 | Police can seize cash on suspicion of money laundering (§ 261 StGB). Under § 76a(4) StGB the court should confiscate seized property 'stemming from an unlawful act' even when no one is prosecuted. Under § 437 StPO the court can infer criminal origin from a gross mismatch with the owner's legal income and from the circumstances of the find. In practice the owner must explain where the money came from while it stays seized. |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 4 | −0.5 | 3.5 | Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s294, police can seize cash of £1,000 or more on reasonable suspicion that it is recoverable property or intended for unlawful conduct, with no charge needed. Courts can extend detention for up to 2 years, and forfeiture (s298) is decided in the magistrates' court on the civil balance of probabilities. The owner must contest it to get the money back; account-freezing orders work the same way. These are routine civil proceedings. |
| New Zealand | 4 | 4 | −0.5 | 3.5 | Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, the High Court makes a forfeiture order if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that property is tainted, with no conviction needed (s50), after a court restraining order. Since 2023, failing to comply with a disclosure-of-source order creates a presumption that the property is tainted. Police can seize cash at a stop as evidential material on reasonable grounds, and the owner must litigate to recover it. |
| Ireland | 4 | 4 | −0.5 | 3.5 | Under Criminal Justice Act 1994 s38, gardaí or customs may seize cash above a prescribed sum on reasonable suspicion that it is proceeds of crime or intended for criminal conduct, with no charge needed. The District Court can extend detention in 3-month steps, and s39 lets the Circuit Court forfeit it on the civil balance of probabilities 'whether or not proceedings are brought'. The Criminal Assets Bureau can also freeze assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The owner must litigate to recover the money. |
| Mexico | 4 | 3 | −1 | 2.4 | Constitution art. 22 and the 2019 Ley Nacional de Extinción de Dominio allow civil forfeiture of assets linked to listed crimes whose 'legítima procedencia' the owner cannot prove, so the owner must litigate to recover. In AI 100/2019 (June 2021) the Supreme Court limited forfeiture to assets of illicit origin. Police can also hold the cash and refer the owner for money laundering (CPF art. 400 Bis). At stops, cash is often taken informally: 63.5% of people who dealt with police in 2025 experienced corruption. |
| United States | 3.5 | 3 | −1 | 2.2 | Police may seize cash and seek civil forfeiture without charging anyone. Federally the government must prove forfeitability only by a preponderance (18 U.S.C. 983(c)), and most seizures end in administrative forfeiture unless the owner files a claim within the deadline. Culley v. Marshall (2024) held that no prompt retention hearing is required. Only Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico and North Carolina have ended civil forfeiture, and local police in other states can use federal equitable sharing. Fighting a $20,000 seizure often costs a large share of the sum. |