People v. Pena, 2017 IL App (2d) 151203
The defendant's property was forfeited pursuant to money-laundering statute. Where the property was seized as part of criminal proceedings and the notice was insufficient, the Second District found it had jurisdiction over the defendant's motion for return of property. The Second District also found that though the State's Attorney's mailing notice of forfeiture proceedings to the defendant at the California address he gave at time of his arrest was pursuant to statute, it was constitutionally insufficient notice, as the State's Attorney had ample reason to know that the defendant would not receive notice at his California address: conditions of the defendant's bond included that he was ordered to remain in Illinois, and he regularly reported to pretrial services. As such, the defendant's address was readily ascertainable from pretrial services. Consequently, the court vacated the forfeiture and remanded the cause for further proceedings.