Uploaded April 2022 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Six months prior to this traffic stop, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed into law the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2019, which amended Arkansas law to read: "There shall be no civil judgment under this subchapter and no property shall be forfeited unless the person from whom the property is seized is convicted of a felony offense that related to the property."
You would be forgiven for thinking that such a law would curb civil asset forfeiture in Arkansas. Not quite, though. Now, cases are simply transferred to federal court, where there are no such restrictions, and where "equitable sharing" ensures that a sizable portion of any forfeited funds gets kicked back to the local agency.
A separate Arkansas law was passed to curb that practice: "No state or local law enforcement agency may transfer any property seized by the state or local agency to any federal entity for forfeiture under federal law unless the circuit court having jurisdiction over the property enters an order, upon petition by the prosecuting attorney, authorizing the property to be transferred to the federal entity."
The law further states that "the transfer shall not be approved unless it reasonably appears that the activity giving rise to the investigation or seizure involves more than one state or the nature of the investigation or seizure would be better pursued under federal law."
That's why, on September 12, 2019, Lonoke County Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney John Huggins filed in Lonoke Circuit Court a complaint for forfeiture, immediately followed by a "Petition for Authorization to Transfer Seized Property to Drug Enforcement Administration." In Huggins' petition were the magic words: "[T]he nature of the activity giving rise to the seizure would better be pursued under federal forfeiture law because the federal authorities are investigating the Claimant's involvement in interstate drug trafficking." Investigating.
PACER stands for "Public Access to Court Electronic Records." It's a service that does two things: (1) provides electronic public access to federal court records, and (2) slowly empties your wallet.
As of this story's publication, a name search of PACER for "Sung Won Kim" reveals that there have been no federal charges brought against Sung Won Kim. Kim did, however, file for bankruptcy in 2020.
As to Mr. Kim's (or whomever's...) funds, some mild comedy from the case USA v. $332,057 in United States Currency:
On March 21, 2022, Judge Kristine Baker denied the claimant's motion to suppress evidence. That same day, Judge Baker issued a "Judgment and Decree of Forfeiture," writing "The Court declares that the $332,057 in U.S. currency (“defendant property”) described in the government’s verified complaint is forfeited, and title is now vested in the United States. All prior claims in and against the defendant property are extinguished and declared void. The defendant property shall be turned over to the United States and disposed of according to law. The Clerk is directed to close the case."
The following day, Judge Baker issues an order vacating her previous judgment: "The Court, on its own motion, withdraws the judgment entered on March 21, 2022. Both parties take the position that matters remain for trial, even with the Court’s ruling on the suppression motion. Trial in this matter remains scheduled. The Clerk is directed to reopen the case."
Oops.
Mr. Kim claims the currency actually totaled $360,000, and that it "essentially belongs to me and my wife, Hyun Kim." As to its provenance, some excerpts from Kim's interrogatory answers follow, lightly edited for brevity:
"[S]ignificant sums were entrusted to us by family during the recent year(s) prior to this incident."
"Upon marrying, we received marriage gifts from various friends and relatives in cash, as is customary in all Asian cultures....By 2015 my wife and I had approximately $220,000 saved, in cash"
[A bit surprising, since Kim also filed for bankruptcy in 2012.]
"Around New Year of 2018, my father, a Christian preacher and successful investor, knew that I was trying hard to follow my dream of buying, improving, and selling classic, custom cars, but was having a rough time of it because the overhead is so high. He visited me and placed in my custody $150,000 in order that I might be better able to succeed at my dream. This was all in cash, which, again, is completely normal in our culture. We don’t leave our money to banks. Unfortunately, my father passed away, so he cannot confirm this."
"A few months after my father visited, [my wife's father] told his son to have a close friend of his deliver cash to us. We don’t know this man but he did business with my father in law and the arrangement was made without question. The amount was $60,000. There would not be a written contract between parent and child in our culture. My wife’s father is suffering now from Alzheimer’s."
~~~
/r/realworldpolice
@realworldpolice
@WhatYouHaventSeen
Six months prior to this traffic stop, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed into law the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2019, which amended Arkansas law to read: "There shall be no civil judgment under this subchapter and no property shall be forfeited unless the person from whom the property is seized is convicted of a felony offense that related to the property."
You would be forgiven for thinking that such a law would curb civil asset forfeiture in Arkansas. Not quite, though. Now, cases are simply transferred to federal court, where there are no such restrictions, and where "equitable sharing" ensures that a sizable portion of any forfeited funds gets kicked back to the local agency.
A separate Arkansas law was passed to curb that practice: "No state or local law enforcement agency may transfer any property seized by the state or local agency to any federal entity for forfeiture under federal law unless the circuit court having jurisdiction over the property enters an order, upon petition by the prosecuting attorney, authorizing the property to be transferred to the federal entity."
The law further states that "the transfer shall not be approved unless it reasonably appears that the activity giving rise to the investigation or seizure involves more than one state or the nature of the investigation or seizure would be better pursued under federal law."
That's why, on September 12, 2019, Lonoke County Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney John Huggins filed in Lonoke Circuit Court a complaint for forfeiture, immediately followed by a "Petition for Authorization to Transfer Seized Property to Drug Enforcement Administration." In Huggins' petition were the magic words: "[T]he nature of the activity giving rise to the seizure would better be pursued under federal forfeiture law because the federal authorities are investigating the Claimant's involvement in interstate drug trafficking." Investigating.
PACER stands for "Public Access to Court Electronic Records." It's a service that does two things: (1) provides electronic public access to federal court records, and (2) slowly empties your wallet.
As of this story's publication, a name search of PACER for "Sung Won Kim" reveals that there have been no federal charges brought against Sung Won Kim. Kim did, however, file for bankruptcy in 2020.
As to Mr. Kim's (or whomever's...) funds, some mild comedy from the case USA v. $332,057 in United States Currency:
On March 21, 2022, Judge Kristine Baker denied the claimant's motion to suppress evidence. That same day, Judge Baker issued a "Judgment and Decree of Forfeiture," writing "The Court declares that the $332,057 in U.S. currency (“defendant property”) described in the government’s verified complaint is forfeited, and title is now vested in the United States. All prior claims in and against the defendant property are extinguished and declared void. The defendant property shall be turned over to the United States and disposed of according to law. The Clerk is directed to close the case."
The following day, Judge Baker issues an order vacating her previous judgment: "The Court, on its own motion, withdraws the judgment entered on March 21, 2022. Both parties take the position that matters remain for trial, even with the Court’s ruling on the suppression motion. Trial in this matter remains scheduled. The Clerk is directed to reopen the case."
Oops.
Mr. Kim claims the currency actually totaled $360,000, and that it "essentially belongs to me and my wife, Hyun Kim." As to its provenance, some excerpts from Kim's interrogatory answers follow, lightly edited for brevity:
"[S]ignificant sums were entrusted to us by family during the recent year(s) prior to this incident."
"Upon marrying, we received marriage gifts from various friends and relatives in cash, as is customary in all Asian cultures....By 2015 my wife and I had approximately $220,000 saved, in cash"
[A bit surprising, since Kim also filed for bankruptcy in 2012.]
"Around New Year of 2018, my father, a Christian preacher and successful investor, knew that I was trying hard to follow my dream of buying, improving, and selling classic, custom cars, but was having a rough time of it because the overhead is so high. He visited me and placed in my custody $150,000 in order that I might be better able to succeed at my dream. This was all in cash, which, again, is completely normal in our culture. We don’t leave our money to banks. Unfortunately, my father passed away, so he cannot confirm this."
"A few months after my father visited, [my wife's father] told his son to have a close friend of his deliver cash to us. We don’t know this man but he did business with my father in law and the arrangement was made without question. The amount was $60,000. There would not be a written contract between parent and child in our culture. My wife’s father is suffering now from Alzheimer’s."
~~~
/r/realworldpolice
@realworldpolice
@WhatYouHaventSeen
