Bill
HR 7638
The FAIR Act raises higher proof standards, ends nonjudicial forfeitures, moves decisions to courts, and directs forfeiture proceeds into the General Fund.
Date Introduced: February 20, 2026
Primary Sponsors: Tom Walberg, with cosponsors Jamie Raskin, Mary Gay Scanlon, and Tim Walberg
Jurisdiction: United States Congress (House of Representatives; referred to the Judiciary, plus Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Financial Services)
Purpose and intent
- The FAIR Act of 2026 aims to restore what its sponsors view as the integrity of the Fifth Amendment protections in civil forfeiture and related enforcement processes. The bill would overhaul civil and criminal forfeiture procedures across multiple statutes to emphasize judicial processes, heightened standards of evidence, and stronger protections for property owners and presumed innocent ownership.
Key provisions and changes
1) Civil forfeiture and nonjudicial forfeiture (18 U.S.C. § 983 and related changes)
- Prohibits nonjudicial (in rem) forfeitures conducted by federal seizing agencies.
- Requires forfeiture proceedings to occur through judicial processes only; no orders of forfeiture may be entered except by a U.S. district court.
- Tightens notice and identity determinations of interested parties, including timing for notifying parties after seizure and confirming identities within seven days (or seven days after identity determination).
- Elevates evidentiary standard in several forfeiture contexts:
- Shifts several thresholds from “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence,” especially for Government assertions that property was used to commit or facilitate offenses and for establishing substantial connection between property and offense.
- Requires the Government to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the owner’s actions involved intent or knowledge in cases where the property was used by another to commit an offense.
- Modifies procedures for innocent owner claims, moving to a framework where the Government bears the burden to prove non-innocence by a preponderance of the evidence, while providing a path for owners to rebut with evidence of reasonable behavior or compliance.
2) Disposition of forfeited property (Controlled Substances Act and related statutes)
- Revises how proceeds and forfeited property are handled, directing deposit into the General Fund of the Treasury rather than discretionary allocation or specific programs.
- Restructures and, in some places, reduces the number of forfeiture-related alternatives under several statutes.
3) Related statutory and funding adjustments
- Tariff Act and related U.S. Code amendments to align forfeiture disposition with federal treasury practices.
- Adjusts 31 U.S.C. provisions concerning confiscation-related funds, creating streamlined procedures and altering references to forfeiture events.
4) Forfeiture reporting and transparency
- Adds new reporting requirements to track and distinguish proceeds from types of forfeiture (criminal vs. civil), improving transparency in how forfeited funds are derived and used.
5) Procedural and constitutional alignment
- Requires probable cause hearings for certain monetary instrument seizure-related asset actions, with a mandated return of property absent probable cause findings.
- Adds a short timeline (as early as 14 days) for court review after seizure, ensuring faster judicial oversight in certain cases.
6) Applicability
- Applies to civil forfeiture proceedings filed on or after the enactment date and to amounts received from property forfeiture on or after enactment.
Who would be affected
- Federal seizing agencies, defendants and property owners in forfeiture cases, and providers of legal representation in forfeiture matters when indigent or otherwise unable to afford counsel (with potential appointment rights expanded).
- Property owners whose assets are subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, with heightened evidentiary standards and new protections regarding innocent ownership.
- Treasury and related agencies due to changes in disposition of forfeited proceeds.
Significant procedural or timeline aspects
- Replaces nonjudicial (in rem) forfeitures with exclusively judicial proceedings at the federal level.
- Introduces clear timelines for identity determinations (within 7 days of seizure) and for probable cause hearings in certain monetary instrument seizure contexts (not later than 14 days after notice).
- Requires ongoing reporting and transparency regarding types of forfeiture funds and their sources.
Overall impact
- The bill would markedly constrain federal civil forfeiture, raising standards of proof and moving forfeiture decisions into court, with enhanced protections for individuals and a shift toward General Fund deposits for proceeds. It also imposes additional procedural requirements and reporting to improve oversight and accountability of forfeiture activities.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
