Mario Ayala owns Ayala’s Mini Market, a money services business in Glendale, Arizona. Back in February 2025, federal agents with the IRS and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) raided his business and others in the Phoenix area.
The authorities stole about $460,000 in cash from Ayala’s business under civil asset forfeiture. Now, the business owner is suing with help from the Institute for Justice (IJ).
Today, the owner of a Glendale money services business (MSB) teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit after his business was raided and had cash, computers, and other property seized by federal agents last year. Ayala’s Mini Market owner Mario Ayala was never told what he allegedly did wrong and was never given a way to contest the seizure.
“The government can’t take your stuff, disappear, and then never explain itself,” said IJ Attorney Betsy Sanz. “For over a year and a half, the government has been holding Mario’s money and property. This prolonged seizure violates the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The government cannot hold onto your property indefinitely without explanation so it can eventually take it permanently using civil forfeiture.”
MSBs like Ayala’s have been around for more than a century and remain vital resources in underserved communities. For those without the means to open a bank account, MSBs are essential for cashing checks, paying bills, or sending money to family. Because cash is the product for MSBs, they tend to keep large sums of it on hand. But these businesses are also regulated extremely closely and abide by strict anti-money laundering measures.
“This business is my American Dream and the government took years of my hard work without telling me what I did,” said Mario. “This raid hurt me and my family. I hope this lawsuit gets my money back and helps make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”
Recommended
Federal law enforcement conducted the raid to identify businesses they could charge with “structuring,” which occurs when someone breaks down a large cash transaction into multiple smaller transactions to evade federal reporting requirements.
Ayala filed a motion to retrieve the property the government seized from his business during the raid. He notes that Homeland Security and the IRS have kept his money, electronics, and business documents for over a year and a half without filing a single criminal charge against him.
The motion argues that this prolonged retention of Ayala’s property violates his Fourth Amendment rights because the government missed mandatory civil forfeiture deadlines and has no legal or evidentiary justification to continue holding on to his property based on a vague suspicion of “structuring.”
The motion details the raid and the lack of due process. Agents raided the business based on suspicion of structuring. But they allowed the business to remain active afterward.
Despite agents assuring him that Ayala would receive instructions on how to reclaim his stolen property within 30 days, no such information materialized. "Over a year and a half later, the Movants have received no information and their property remains seized, even though neither has been charged with any crime,” the complaint reads.
The filing also contends that the state exhausted all legal avenues it could use to justify keeping Ayala’s property. The law mandates that a seizure is only reasonable if its underlying justification remains valid. The government is now allowed to pursue continued civil asset forfeiture because it failed to meet the mandatory notice deadlines established by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.
Federal statutes also prohibit the IRS from seizing property for forfeiture when “structuring” is the only suspected offense.
Ayala’s story is one of many illustrating why civil asset forfeiture is a problematic practice. It essentially allows local, state, and federal law enforcement officers to seize someone’s property if they merely claim they believe it was used to commit crimes.
This means an officer can make an allegation and use it as an excuse to take someone’s money, electronics, home, vehicle, and other property without a shred of due process. They don’t have to make an arrest or even win a conviction.
After they steal the property, it is exceedingly difficult to retrieve.
If one of us regular folks did this, they wouldn’t call it “forfeiture.” They’d call it what it is: Theft. Then they would throw us in cages for the offense.
The truth is that the government stole Ayala’s property. Hopefully, this lawsuit will force the agencies to return it.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.