Background
On June 25, 2024, Illinois State Police conducted a traffic stop on Interstate 70 in Madison County and discovered approximately $250,000 concealed beneath the center console of a 2017 Lexus RX 350, plus an additional $400 on one occupant’s person. The vehicle and currency were seized. On July 3, 2024, the Madison County State’s Attorney filed a verified complaint for forfeiture under 720 ILCS 5/29B-5, alleging the property constituted proceeds of or was used to facilitate money laundering. A probable-cause finding was entered the same day.
Claimants Xiaolin Zheng and Kezhong Xie filed a verified claim and answer on July 30, 2024, asserting lawful ownership and alleging the money came from family and acquaintances for opening a restaurant. The State filed a motion to strike the verified claim on October 2, 2024. Both parties agreed to stay the forfeiture proceedings while related criminal charges proceeded. After the State dismissed the underlying money laundering charges on March 20, 2025, it moved to dismiss the forfeiture action the following day. At the March 21 hearing, the circuit court granted the State’s motion without addressing the pending motion to strike or directing any disposition of the seized property. The court stated that its jurisdiction ended upon dismissal and the property’s fate was no longer its concern.
The claimants appealed, arguing the court erred by dismissing the forfeiture action without entering a final order directing disposition of the property and without returning the seized assets to them.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court held that the circuit court erred by dismissing the forfeiture action without entering a final disposition order. Once a court acquires in rem jurisdiction over property through the filing of a verified forfeiture complaint and entry of a probable-cause finding, that jurisdiction does not terminate upon the State’s voluntary dismissal. Rather, the court’s jurisdiction persists until it affirmatively disposes of the property through a judicial order. Dismissal of the pleadings alone does not extinguish this continuing jurisdiction over the res itself.
The court further held that the circuit court erred by failing to address the State’s pending motion to strike the claimants’ verified claim before granting dismissal. Under 720 ILCS 5/29B-13, the forfeiture statute establishes a required sequential procedure: the court must first resolve threshold matters regarding the legal sufficiency of any verified claim under section 29B-13(5) and (6) before proceeding to an evidentiary hearing on the merits. By granting dismissal without first ruling on the motion to strike, the circuit court skipped a mandatory procedural step.
Regarding the claimants’ entitlement to immediate return of the property, the court rejected their argument that voluntary dismissal constitutes failure of proof triggering mandatory return under section 29B-13(10). That provision applies only when the State fails to meet its burden at an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Because no such hearing occurred and the sufficiency of the verified claim was never adjudicated, section 29B-13(10) was not implicated. The court also noted that property may continue to be lawfully held for evidentiary purposes under 720 ILCS 5/29B-25(d), and the record indicated Missouri authorities sought the currency for use in their own criminal proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Once in rem jurisdiction attaches to seized property in a forfeiture action, that jurisdiction persists until the court enters an affirmative disposition order and cannot be terminated by the prosecutor’s voluntary dismissal alone.
- Forfeiture statutes establish mandatory sequential procedures that courts cannot circumvent, even by agreement of the parties.
- Mandatory return of seized property is not automatic upon voluntary dismissal; it applies only after the State fails to prove forfeiture at a merits hearing.
- Property may be retained for legitimate evidentiary purposes in criminal proceedings, and courts must address such retention authority on remand.
- Prosecutors cannot effectively abandon a forfeiture action while keeping seized assets indefinitely; courts retain oversight obligations.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical protection against an end-run around asset forfeiture safeguards. It prevents prosecutorial abandonment of forfeiture claims from leaving seized property in indefinite limbo without judicial oversight. By holding that in rem jurisdiction persists regardless of prosecutorial discretion, the court ensures that claimants and other interested parties retain their ability to seek judicial resolution of property disposition. This is particularly important where, as here, third parties or other jurisdictions may have competing interests in the asset.
The decision also reinforces the importance of procedural regularity in forfeiture cases. By requiring courts to follow the mandatory sequence established by statute—including resolution of threshold ownership and claim-sufficiency issues before merits adjudication—the court protects claimants from summary dismissals that bypass required protections. The holding acknowledges, however, that legitimate governmental interests in retaining property for evidence or comity considerations can still be pursued through proper judicial process on remand.