Background
On June 25, 2024, Illinois State Police seized approximately $250,000 in currency and a 2017 Lexus RX 350 from petitioners Xiaolin Zheng and Kezhong Xie during a traffic stop in Madison County. The property was stored in an evidence facility located in St. Clair County. Madison County initiated both felony money laundering charges and a civil forfeiture action under article 29B of the Criminal Code. The petitioners filed a verified claim of lawful ownership.
On March 20, 2025, the State dismissed the criminal charges, and on March 21, 2025, dismissed the civil forfeiture action—crucially, without entering any order directing the disposition of the seized property. The property remained in St. Clair County’s evidence facility in legal limbo. On March 24, 2025, the petitioners filed an action in St. Clair County seeking to enjoin transfer and compel return of the property.
After a temporary restraining order was entered on March 25, 2025, a hearing was held on April 3, 2025. That morning, a different St. Clair County judge issued a search warrant authorizing Callaway County, Missouri authorities to seize the $250,000 for use as evidence in Missouri criminal proceedings. On April 7, 2025, the St. Clair County court dissolved the restraining order and directed that $250,000 be transferred to Missouri and the Lexus be returned to petitioners’ counsel. On April 11, 2025, the court ordered return of the remaining $400.
The Illinois Appellate Court held that St. Clair County lacked jurisdiction to enter the April 7 and April 11 orders because Madison County retained exclusive in rem jurisdiction over all seized property. In rem jurisdiction—jurisdiction over property itself—attached when Madison County initiated the forfeiture action. Although that action was dismissed, the dismissal order did not direct disposition of the property, leaving Madison County with continuing exclusive control over the res (the property).
The court rejected the State’s argument that St. Clair County’s personal jurisdiction over the Illinois State Police authorized the transfer orders. In personam jurisdiction over a party is distinct from and cannot confer authority to dispose of property already under another court’s in rem jurisdiction. The court also held that the search warrant issued by St. Clair County could not expand that court’s jurisdictional authority. The physical location of the property in St. Clair County’s evidence facility did not divest Madison County’s exclusive in rem jurisdiction.
Applying long-standing principles, the court emphasized that once a court acquires in rem jurisdiction over property, it retains exclusive control until that court expressly disposes of it. No other court—not even a sister court—may enter orders determining the custody or disposition of property under another court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction. St. Clair County’s orders were therefore void.