Civil Forfeiture: How 32 Tons of Shark Fins Appealed in Court

Wyatt Smith ‘26

On August 13, 2002, a small ship called King Diamond II floated heavily off the west coast of Mexico, weighed down by illicit cargo. When Navy destroyer USS Fife spotted the vessel floating lopsidedly through the water, the destroyer requested a search of the King Diamond II and sent a boarding party to conduct it. What they found were 32 tons of decaying shark fins, stacked unceremoniously onto palettes below deck. Under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, fishing for shark fins was prohibited in the U.S. exclusive economic zone. There was just one problem: the King Diamond II was in international waters. So, with the prosecution of the fishermen off the table, the U.S. immediately prosecuted… the shark fins?

Yes, you read that correctly. The U.S. didn’t prosecute the fisherman or the fishing company, they prosecuted the shark fins as legal entities in a court case called United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins (2008). How is this possible? How can an inanimate object be charged in court?

Such a case is made possible by a concept in American law called civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is a process by which law enforcement agencies and officers have the power to confiscate property that is suspected of being involved in a crime, even if no individual or organization has been charged. For example, If a police officer believes that a Ford F-150 has been used to traffic drugs, they can then confiscate that vehicle provided they have probable cause. 

This kind of legal action is possible through a concept called “in rem jurisdiction”. In rem jurisdiction is a fancy Latin term for “jurisdiction with regards to an object”, and includes property that the government may exercise legal authority over. In civil forfeiture cases, it lets the government bring legal proceedings against property. This allows constitutionally sound seizures without needing a criminal conviction, and without violating due process, because it allows the “guilt” of the object to be decided separately from the individual.

Under in rem jurisdiction, the property itself is treated as its own party. When a civil forfeiture hearing is held in court, the owner will not be the defendant; the truck will be. That is how the case United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins was possible. The owner may appeal on behalf of the property, but the property itself is the party in court. In civil forfeiture hearings, the standard of proof is “by a preponderance of the evidence”, meaning the court will ask the question: “is it more likely than not that this item was used in the commission of a crime?”. 

If the court finds that the property was used in a crime, the court will issue what’s called a “Judgment of Forfeiture”, which officially transfers ownership of the property to the government. A judgment of forfeiture has no legal implications for the owner other than the confiscation of their property. At this point, the confiscating law enforcement agency can do pretty much whatever they want with the property (more on that later). If the owner of the property wishes to appeal the case, they can. However, they will not be afforded the same rights that a criminal defendant would, such as the 6th Amendment right to an attorney. This is because the property itself is what’s on trial. Confusing, right?

Not only is civil forfeiture confusing, it’s also pretty controversial for a number of reasons. Critics claim that civil forfeiture gives police too much power, and may even violate the 4th amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Others claim that civil forfeiture violates the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, because people can be deprived of property without any right to legal counsel or advocacy, which some believe is a violation of due process. 

Additionally, because law enforcement gets to keep forfeited assets with few restrictions on how they’re used, there can be a perverse incentive for them to confiscate more property. For example, one district attorney’s office in Texas used seized funds to buy a margarita machine and vacations to Hawaii. Another district attorney’s office redistributed about $845,000 between 16 employees (that’s about $52,812.5 a piece, close to the median salary in the U.S.).  This raises concerns that civil forfeiture allows “for-profit policing” and skews the priorities of law enforcement. While these are just two cases, they don’t exist in a bubble. The scope of civil forfeiture in the U.S. is massive. Between 2000 and 2020, over $68,000,000,000 have been seized via civil forfeiture. Because of the difficult and expensive appeals process for property owners, it can be difficult to hold errant police accountable for potentially improper seizures.

Finally, legal scholars point out that the original intended use of in rem jurisdiction under the common law was almost exclusively for cases where there was assumed to be no owner for the property in question. This could include anything from buried treasure to an abandoned house. Because of this, in rem proceedings were designed to presume that the property has no owner, and they still do, even in cases where the property very clearly has an owner. If that F-150 were confiscated from our hypothetical appellant, their appeal would have to prove that they are the owner of the property, and that the property was not used to commit a crime. In this way, the property is “guilty until proven innocent” in the court of law.

There are undoubtedly some societal benefits to civil forfeiture, though. While some police precincts and district attorneys offices use confiscated funds to buy margarita machines, others use those funds to buy items that are essential to their operation, such as new uniforms and parts to repair police cars. Others praise civil forfeiture as a way to prevent crime and confiscate illicit goods in situations where a criminal conviction is unlikely, which certainly has its own benefits. The question is: do those benefits outweigh the potential costs?

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins was decided in 2008 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Spoiler: the shark fins won. In what is now a landmark maritime law case, the court ruled that the original search of the King Diamond II had been illegal, because the vessel was not a fishing vessel under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 1976 legislation defining, among other things, the classifications of fishing boats. Under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, fishing vessels were specified under no uncertain terms as the subjects of the legislation. Therefore, because the King Diamond II was not one, there was no probable cause in the first place. That is how 32 tons of rotting shark meat triumphed against the U.S. government.

Wyatt Smith is a junior majoring in operations and supply chain management.

Sources

Audit of the Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund Annual Financial Statements Fiscal Year 2024. (2025, March). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from  https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/25-044.pdf 

FindLaw.com - 21 U.S.C. § 881 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 21. Food and Drugs § 881. Forfeitures - last updated January 01, 2024 | https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-21-food-and-drugs/21-usc-sect-881/ 

General Rules for Civil Forfeiture Proceedings, 18 U.S. Code § 983 (2016, February 18). https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/246/18_USCA_s_983_3-15-11_0933.pdf 

Illinois v. Gates. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-430 

In Rem Jurisdiction. (2014, December 31). Legal Dictionary. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from  https://legaldictionary.net/in-rem-jurisdiction/ 

Knepper, L., Mcdonald, J., Sanchez, K., Pohl, E.S. (2020, December 14). Policing for Profit. Injustice for Justice. https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/ 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq (1976). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-38 

Santucci, J. (2024, August 18). Old legal quirk lets police take your money with little reason, critics say. U.S.A Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/08/18/civil-asset-forfeiture-explained/74802279007/ 

Shark Finning Prohibition Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1857 (2000). https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ557/PLAW-106publ557.pdf 

Sibilla, N. (2014, June 5). Cops In Texas Seize Millions By 'Policing for Profit'. Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/cops-in-texas-seize-millions-y-policing-for-proCops In Texas Seize Millions By 'Policing for Profit'fit/ 

Sibilla, N. (2019, October 22). South Carolina Judge Declares Civil Forfeiture Unconstitutional. Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/10/22/south-carolina-judge-declares--civil-forfeiture-unconstitutional/#1ab078d82135 

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 520 f.3d 976 (2008) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10574858809426807872