A California couple found themselves embroiled in a legal battle with the state of Indiana despite never having set foot there after law enforcement seized their property under civil asset forfeiture.
Henry and Minh Cheng, who have been in the wholesale jewelry business for over three decades, are fighting in an Indiana court to get their property back. The ordeal began in early 2024 when they made a bulk sale to a retailer in Virginia, according to a press release from the Institute for Justice.
The customer agreed to pay for the merchandise in cash, which was shipped to the Chengs through FedEx. A police officer seized the cash after it was intercepted at the Indianapolis FedEx hub, which led to a civil forfeiture action by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecutor’s office alleged that the cash was connected to criminal activity despite failing to specify any particular crime, according to the press release.
The Institute for Justice alleges that the Chengs’ situation is part of a more widespread trend at the Indianapolis FedEx hub. Law enforcement officers routinely take parcels from conveyor belts, run them past K-9 units, and if the dog alerts, they seize the cash inside.
Indiana has seized over $2.5 million from in-transit parcels since 2022, according to the Institute for Justice. The Indiana government cannot take money from people just because a shipping company routes it through Indiana,” said Marie Miller, an attorney with the organization. Henry and Minh have never been to Indiana or done business in Indiana, but now they have to defend against a forfeiture action in Indiana, without the state bothering to identify an Indiana crime that it can allege the money is linked to.”
In this case, the Chengs are fighting to retrieve more than $42,000 that was taken from their business by law enforcement. “The government can’t even identify a crime that would allow them to keep the money that we need to run our business,” said Henry Cheng. “We were shocked when we found out what was going on in Indianapolis, and we want to put a stop to it.”
In the legal complaint, the state claims the money seized from the Chengs “was furnished or was intended to be furnished in exchange for a violation of a criminal statute, or is traceable as proceeds of a violation of a criminal statute.”
Cheng’s attorney responded by denying that the money was being used for criminal activity and challenging the basis for the seizure.
Henry Minh, Inc. denies that the currency was initially seized in the course of serving a search warrant; it was seized before the search warrant was issued and later continued to be seized by the execution of the warrant.
The family’s attorney also pointed out that the prosecutor violated the state’s notice-pleading standard “by failing to allege what criminal violation purports to serve as the basis for forfeiture.”
Indeed, the court documents show that the state did not actually name a specific crime that was being committed, nor did it provide any evidence showing illegal activity.
The Chengs’ plight reflects the overall problems with civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows law enforcement to seize property if they believe it has been used to commit a crime. Unfortunately, government institutions at the local, state, and federal levels have abused this practice to bring in more revenue at the expense of people who typically don’t have the wherewithal to fight back.
