Provides for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles, vessels and aircraft used in counterfeit goods; establishes this shall not apply to vehicles, vessels, or aircrafts that are used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as such common carrier.
This bill creates a new article in the Penal Law authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used in violations of New York’s counterfeit-goods offenses. If a vehicle, boat, or aircraft is used in conduct prohibited by Penal Law sections 165.71, 165.72, or 165.73, it may be seized by a peace officer or police officer and then subject to forfeiture proceedings. The bill excludes common carriers used in the ordinary course of business from these seizure and forfeiture provisions.
After seizure, the property must be turned over to the district attorney, who must review the facts and decide whether to commence forfeiture proceedings in Supreme Court. The bill requires notice to owners, allows forfeiture only after judicial determination, and gives owners an opportunity to contest forfeiture by showing lack of intent or that the property was used by someone else who possessed it unlawfully. If forfeiture is ordered, the property may be retained for official use or sold, with net proceeds going to the county general fund. The bill also allows petitions for recovery by interested parties and sets a two-year limit for wrongful-seizure actions.
The bill would expand New York’s asset-forfeiture framework by adding a specific remedy tied to counterfeit-goods offenses, giving law enforcement and prosecutors authority to seize and forfeit transportation assets used in the illegal distribution or transport of counterfeit goods. It would affect owners of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft implicated in those offenses, while expressly protecting common carriers from forfeiture under this section. The measure would also create new procedural requirements for notice, judicial review, disposition of forfeited property, and recovery claims, and it would direct sale proceeds to county general funds.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of stronger enforcement against counterfeit-goods trafficking. The proposal is framed as a targeted public-safety and anti-counterfeiting measure rather than a broad forfeiture expansion, with built-in notice and ownership defenses that suggest an effort to balance enforcement with due process. No formal opposition or recorded vote history is available in the provided materials.
The main points of contention would likely center on civil asset forfeiture concerns, including whether seizure of vehicles, boats, and aircraft is an appropriate penalty for counterfeit-goods offenses and whether the process provides sufficient protections for innocent owners. Another likely issue is the scope of law enforcement discretion and the possibility of forfeiture affecting business assets, which the bill addresses by exempting common carriers. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence and disruption of counterfeit distribution networks, while critics may focus on property rights, due process, and the risk of overreach.