United States Third Circuit

Reset A A Font size: Print

US v. Craig, 11-1697

In a conviction of a defendant for wire fraud and failure to appear at trial, district court's denial of defendant's motion seeking interest on an award of excess funds returned to him after satisfying a restitution order pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) is affirmed where: 1) defendant does not qualify as a "substantial prevailing party" under CAFRA, as he obtained neither a judgment on the merits nor any relief specific to the forfeiture action; and 2) the Rule 41(g), which provides only for the return of property and makes no explicit mention of interest, does not waive the sovereign's immunity with respect to defendant's claim.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 09/17/2012
  • Published 09/17/2012


  • Hardiman


  • United States Third Circuit