Trouble in Paradise: White Lotus Character’s Legal Woes Illustrate Civil Forfeiture’s Overreach

By: Abbey Block

Last Sunday, millions of viewers tuned in to watch the season finale of White Lotus – a widely popular show that centers around the week-long vacation of several ultra-wealthy patrons of the fictional “White Lotus” resort in Thailand.[1]

The show follows a dynamic cast of quirky characters as they navigate their opulent getaway. One of those characters in this most recent season was Timothy Ratliff – the patriarch of a wealthy North Carolinian family and businessman who, while on vacation in Thailand, finds out that he is being investigated for money laundering and bribery back home. As Timothy puts the pieces together, he soon finds out through a heated phone call with his attorney that federal agents have executed search warrants on his office and – worse yet – have seized his assets and frozen his accounts.

Much of Timothy’s storyline focuses on his inability to come to terms with the consequences of his own actions – not only the fact that he is facing a potential prison sentence, but also that the federal government’s seizure of his funds and assets has left his family essentially penniless (a fact that his wife and children remain blissfully unaware of throughout the show).

Although Timothy Ratliff is undoubtedly not the most sympathetic of fictional characters, his storyline highlights a little-known and highly detrimental part of criminal investigation and prosecution – civil forfeiture.

Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize (and keep or sell for profit) any property that is allegedly involved in a crime or illegal activity. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in civil forfeiture, the Government can seize an individual’s assets or property even when he or she has not been charged with or convicted of a crime. In other words, the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” essentially goes out the window when it comes to the Government’s ability to civilly seize your property. By way of example, in Timothy’s fictional case, the Government purportedly seized his bank accounts as part of its investigation, notwithstanding the fact that Timothy had yet to be charged or convicted in the alleged money laundering scheme.

The concept of civil forfeiture is premised upon the notion that the seized assets constitute “guilty” property – i.e., it is an “in rem” proceeding against the property itself, rather than the individual to whom it belongs. As a result, many of the Constitutional protections typically associated with the Government’s seizure of property or deprivation of liberty do not apply. Illustrating this principle, under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), to seize assets prior to a criminal conviction, the Government must show, by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant property is subject to forfeiture as contraband or proceeds traceable to unlawful conduct. The seizure of the property can continue for years, even if the property owner is never indicted or charged with a crime.[2]

Although not necessarily widely discussed outside of legal circles, civil forfeiture is both prevalent and profitable. According to a report published by the Institute for Justice, between 2000 and 2020, states and the federal government forfeited a combined total of at least $68.8 billion (a figure that is likely understated given that not all states provide thorough data regarding their forfeiture practices).

The consequences of civil forfeiture can be financially devastating. If an individual’s bank accounts and financial assets are seized, he or she not only loses access to the money allegedly tied to the criminal activity but also to the entire account. This, in turn, can prevent the individual from being able to financially support themselves or their family, or – if the individual is eventually charged with a crime – hire an attorney to defend against the charges. Amy Nelson, whose financial assets were seized by the FBI in 2020 as part of an investigation into her husband’s business activities told the online publication, Reason, “If you can’t afford to defend yourself, let alone feed yourself . . . it becomes complicated.”[3] Although some judges allow criminal defendants partial access to their assets to pay for their legal defense, there is no guarantee that the Court will be so generous.

Those whose assets are seized can attempt to file a civil lawsuit contesting the forfeiture and seeking return of their property. However, many property owners are either unwilling or financially unable to do so. Often, individuals who are the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution are properly reluctant to file a lawsuit seeking the return of the property, given that doing so would require them to admit their ownership and/or connection to the asset at issue. This, in turn, could be used  as evidence against them by prosecutors seeking to prove ownership or control of contraband or proceeds of illicit activity. This leaves the property owner with an impossible choice: give up their property to the Government or undermine their own legal defense. Even when the target of the civil forfeiture has the financial ability (and desire) to litigate the issue, he or she will continue to be deprived of their property as the case winds its way through the judicial system – a procedure that often takes several years and can bankrupt the property owner in the process.

Worse yet, under the federal government’s “Equitable Sharing”[4] practice “state and local law enforcement agencies . . . partner with the federal government to seize and forfeit property under federal law – and receive up to 80% of the proceeds – regardless of state law.”[5] In other words, local governments can circumvent their state’s asset forfeiture laws to generate a profit from assets seized pursuant to civil forfeiture, provided that they give the federal government a piece of the pie. This undoubtedly creates a host of perverse incentives for law enforcement agencies and undercuts any minimal protections provided under state law.

Civil forfeiture is not limited to alleged white-collar criminals like the fictional Ratliff. Law enforcement can similarly seize cash or physical property under their civil forfeiture authority during a routine traffic stop or other seemingly benign activities. For example, in 2020 police seized $40,000 in cash from a man named Jerry Johnson at a Phoenix airport. Mr. Johnson, who was going to use the money to purchase a semitruck for his shipping business, was approached by police who questioned him about the reason for traveling with such a large sum of cash. Police threatened to take him to jail if he did not sign a waiver form, turning over his property to the custody of the police. Although a trial court originally ruled that he could not even contest the forfeiture of his cash, Mr. Johnson eventually got his money back following two-and-a-half long years of litigation.

It is not only the individual suspected or accused of a crime who stands to lose their property through civil forfeiture. Indeed, “innocent owners” may sometimes be swept up in a civil forfeiture if they, for example, jointly own or lend their property to an individual who is subsequently accused of criminal activity. This is precisely what occurred in the Supreme Court case of Bennis v. Michigan, in which a woman sued for the return of her jointly owned vehicle, which had been seized by law enforcement as a result of her husband’s alleged crimes (in which she did not participate and to which she did not consent).[6] The Supreme Court rejected Mrs. Bennis’s argument that the seizure violated her Constitutional rights, holding that “an owner’s interest in property may be forfeited by reason of the use to which the property is put even though the owner did not know that it was to be put to such use.”[7]

Advocates from both sides of the aisle have called for reform of the rules governing civil forfeiture. Several months ago, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (“FAIR”) Act in an effort to amend the standards and incentives involved in civil forfeiture through the following:

• Eliminating the Equitable Sharing program;
• Requiring that proceeds of civil forfeiture go to the Treasury General Fund, rather than to the law enforcement agency who conduct the seizure;
• Requiring that the government prove its case by a higher standard – clear and convincing evidence – to seize property;
• Ensuring that indigent property owners can receive representation in civil forfeiture proceedings;
• Imposing reporting requirements upon the Attorney General with regard to the type and quantity of assets seized pursuant to civil forfeiture proceedings;
• Eliminating administrative forfeitures which “happen automatically when property owners fail to challenge a seizure in court for any reason” and result in the seized property being presumed guilty without a neutral arbiter; and
• Requiring the government to show that a property owner consented or was willfully blind to his property being used in a crime by a third party.

The FAIR Act is a step in the right direction to implementing necessary guardrails on a governmental practice that improperly incentivizes law enforcement’s disregard for principles of due process. Perhaps the most important part of the bill is the revision of the level of evidence required for the seizure and civil forfeiture of property, which both raises the evidentiary standard of proof and requires some showing that the property owner was, at minimum, aware that the property was used in or the proceeds of criminal activities. These proposed reforms would provide a minimum level of protection for innocent property owners who find themselves swept up in the Government’s investigation of activities in which they did not participate. These protections are equally important for those directly accused of committing the unlawful activity given that the seizure of one’s assets can inhibit the ability to mount a viable defense in court and otherwise aid in one’s own defense.

While Timothy Ratliff’s legal woes served as entertainment for fans of White Lotus, millions of real people face similar circumstances with far fewer resources than our ill-fated hotel guest. From cars and cash seized during a traffic stop, to the freezing of bank accounts containing millions of dollars, individuals at both ends of the economic spectrum are at risk of being victimized by the Government’s overreach. As a result of civil forfeiture, innocent citizens can lose their house, car, and life savings simply based upon the Government’s hunch that the property may be connected to some illusory criminal activity. These practices simply do not comport with our understanding of justice and due process.

[1] Don’t worry – this blog won’t have any finale spoilers!

[2] In the event the property owner is charged with and convicted of a crime, the property is most often absorbed in a criminal forfeiture allegation.

[3] Billy Binion, The FBI Seized Almost $1 Million From This Family – and Never Charged Them With a Crime, Reason (Feb. 18, 2022), https://reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi-seized-almost-1-million-from-amy-sterner-carl-nelson-never-charged-them-with-a-crime/.

[4] In 2015, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he would be limiting the scope of the federal government’s Equitable Sharing practices. However, the Holder policy did not apply to joint operations (which historically make up the bulk of equitable sharing forfeitures).  The Holder policy was subsequently rolled back by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2017, paving the way for continued sharing of profits between state law enforcement agencies and the federal Government. See Didn’t DOJ Fix the Problem?, Institute for Justice (last accessed April 8, 2025), https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/pfp3content/equitable-sharing-creates-a-giant-loophole/didnt-doj-fix-the-problem/.

[5]  Equitable Sharing Creates a Giant Loophole, Insitutte for Justice (last accessed Apr. 9, 2025), https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/pfp3content/equitable-sharing-creates-a-giant-loophole/.

[6] Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996).

[7] Id. at 446.