§ 140A.111.Previously Seized Assets

A priority rule preventing two arms of the state pursuing the same assets.

Notwithstanding another provision of this chapter, no remedy may be assessed against proceeds, contraband, or other property over which a law enforcement agency has previously asserted jurisdiction under Chapter 59, Code of Criminal Procedure, at the time a suit under this chapter was filed.

The referenced chapter is the criminal asset forfeiture statute, under which agencies seize property connected to crime and forfeit it through their own proceeding.

The conflict this avoids is concrete. A trafficking operation’s assets are exactly what a local agency would seize criminally and what the attorney general would attach civilly. Two proceedings over the same property would produce competing claims, duplicated litigation, and an argument between agencies about who takes it.

The rule is first in time. Where the agency asserted jurisdiction before this suit was filed, the criminal forfeiture prevails and the civil remedies do not reach that property.

The cut-off is the filing date, which fixes the question at a single knowable moment — so an agency cannot displace a pending civil action by seizing afterwards, and the attorney general cannot reach property already claimed.

"Notwithstanding another provision of this chapter" makes the bar absolute, overriding the remedies provision and everything else.

Note what is not barred: the suit itself. The action proceeds against the defendant and against other property; only the previously claimed assets are outside it.

The companion racketeering chapter carries the same rule.