of people served
rated by clients
available to help
When a person is charged with a felony offense in Minnesota that resulted in significant financial harm to victims, the prosecuting authority has a specific legal tool available even before a conviction occurs: Minnesota Statute § 609.532, Attachment of Deposited Funds. This statute allows prosecutors to ask a court for an order directing a bank, credit union, or other financial institution to freeze funds or assets held in the defendant’s accounts. The primary purpose of this pre-trial attachment is not punishment, but rather to preserve the defendant’s assets to ensure that, if convicted, funds will be available to pay restitution to the victims who suffered financial losses due to the alleged felony. It is a civil measure tied directly to an active criminal prosecution involving substantial monetary harm.
This process is initiated by the prosecutor through a formal application to the court, which must meet specific criteria, including demonstrating probable cause for the felony charge and showing a financial loss of $10,000 or more. If the court grants the attachment order, the financial institution is legally obligated to freeze the specified funds, preventing the account holder from withdrawing or disposing of them. While this is a powerful tool for protecting potential restitution funds, the statute also includes safeguards for the account holder, providing mechanisms to challenge the freeze and seek the release of funds under certain circumstances. Understanding this statute is vital for anyone facing felony charges involving significant financial loss, as it can have an immediate and substantial impact on their access to personal funds.
Minnesota Statute § 609.532 outlines the specific procedure and requirements for a prosecuting authority to obtain a court order freezing funds held by a financial institution belonging to someone charged with a felony that caused financial loss. It details the application process, the findings a court must make, the duties of the financial institution, the account holder’s rights to challenge the freeze, and the eventual disposition of the funds based on the criminal case outcome.
609.532 ATTACHMENT OF DEPOSITED FUNDS.
Subdivision 1. Attachment. Upon application by the prosecuting authority, a court may issue an attachment order directing a financial institution to freeze some or all of the funds or assets deposited with or held by the financial institution by or on behalf of an account holder charged with the commission of a felony.
Subd. 2. Application. The application of the prosecuting authority required by this section must contain:
(1) a copy of a criminal complaint issued by a court of competent jurisdiction that alleges the commission of a felony by the account holder;
(2) a statement of the actual financial loss caused by the account holder in the commission of the alleged felony, if not already stated in the complaint; and
(3) identification of the account holder’s name and financial institution account number.
Subd. 3. Issuance of court order. If the court finds that (1) there is probable cause that the account holder was involved in the commission of a felony; (2) the accounts of the account holder are specifically identified; (3) there was a loss of $10,000 or more as a result of the commission of the alleged felony; and (4) it is necessary to freeze the account holder’s funds or assets to ensure eventual restitution to victims of the alleged offense, the court may order the financial institution to freeze all or part of the account holder’s deposited funds or assets so that the funds or assets may not be withdrawn or disposed of until further order of the court.
Subd. 4. Duty of financial institutions. Upon receipt of the order authorized by this section, a financial institution must not permit any funds or assets that were frozen by the order to be withdrawn or disposed of until further order of the court.
Subd. 5. Release of funds. (a) The account holder may, upon notice and motion, have a hearing to contest the freezing of funds or assets and to seek the release of all or part of them.
(b) The account holder is entitled to an order releasing the freeze by showing:
(1) that the account holder has posted a bond or other adequate surety, guaranteeing that, upon conviction, adequate funds or assets will be available to pay complete restitution to victims of the alleged offense;
(2) that there is no probable cause to believe that the account holder was involved in the alleged offense;
(3) that the amount of funds or assets frozen is more than is necessary to pay complete restitution to all victims of the alleged offense;
(4) that a joint account holder who is not involved in the alleged criminal activity has deposited all or part of the funds or assets; or
(5) that the funds or assets should be returned in the interests of justice.
(c) It is not grounds for the release of funds or assets that the particular accounts frozen do not contain funds or assets that were proceeds from or used in the commission of the alleged offense.
Subd. 6. Disposition of funds. (a) If the account holder is convicted of a felony or a lesser offense, the funds or assets may be used to pay complete restitution to victims of the offense. The court may order the financial institution to remit all or part of the frozen funds or assets to the court.
(b) If the account holder is acquitted or the charges are dismissed, the court must issue an order releasing the freeze on the funds or assets.
Subd. 7. Time limit. The freeze permitted by this section expires 24 months after the date of the court’s initial attachment order unless the time limit is extended by the court in writing upon a showing of good cause by the prosecution.
Subd. 8. Notice. Within ten days after a court issues an attachment order under this section, the prosecutor shall send a copy of the order to the account holder’s last known address or to the account holder’s attorney, if known.
Before a court can issue an order freezing an individual’s bank accounts or other financial assets under Minnesota Statute § 609.532, the prosecuting authority must submit a formal application and the court must make several specific findings based on the information provided. This process ensures that such a significant action, which restricts access to personal funds before any conviction, is not taken lightly and is based on specific criteria outlined in the law. The statute sets forth clear requirements for both the prosecutor’s application and the court’s subsequent determination.
The prosecuting authority’s application must include (Subd. 2):
Based on the application, the court must find all of the following conditions are met before issuing the attachment order (Subd. 3):
When a court issues an attachment order under Minnesota Statute § 609.532, it triggers immediate and significant consequences for both the financial institution holding the funds and the account holder whose assets are frozen. The primary effect is the immobilization of funds to preserve them for potential victim restitution. The statute clearly defines the duties imposed and the potential outcomes depending on the resolution of the underlying criminal case.
Imagine someone is formally charged with felony embezzlement from their employer, with evidence suggesting they stole $50,000. The prosecutor, concerned the defendant might quickly spend or hide the remaining funds, can use § 609.532. The prosecutor files an application with the court, attaching the criminal complaint, stating the $50,000 loss, and providing the defendant’s known bank account numbers. The judge reviews the application. Finding probable cause for the felony embezzlement charge, that the loss exceeds $10,000, the accounts are identified, and freezing funds seems necessary to secure potential restitution for the employer, the judge issues an attachment order.
The court order is sent to the defendant’s bank. Immediately upon receipt, the bank must freeze the funds in the specified accounts, up to the amount ordered (potentially the full $50,000 loss amount, or less if the account balance is lower). The defendant suddenly finds they cannot access their money – checks bounce, debit card transactions fail. Within ten days, the prosecutor sends a copy of the order to the defendant. The funds remain frozen while the criminal case proceeds. If the defendant is convicted, the judge can order the bank to turn the frozen funds over to pay restitution. If acquitted, the judge orders the freeze lifted.
An employee is charged with felony theft by swindle for embezzling $75,000 from their company over two years. The prosecutor identifies the employee’s primary checking and savings accounts at a local bank. Believing the employee might dissipate remaining funds, the prosecutor applies for an attachment order under § 609.532, providing the complaint, loss amount, and account details. The court finds probable cause for the felony, the loss exceeds $10,000, accounts are identified, and freezing is necessary for potential restitution. The court issues an order freezing up to $75,000 in the specified accounts. The bank complies, and the employee loses access. The prosecutor notifies the employee within 10 days.
An individual is charged with felony theft by false representation for running an investment scheme that defrauded multiple victims out of a total of $200,000. The prosecutor identifies several bank and brokerage accounts held by the defendant. An attachment order is sought and granted for the full $200,000 across all identified accounts, as the court finds all requirements of Subd. 3 are met. The financial institutions freeze the assets. If convicted, the frozen funds would be used towards paying restitution proportionally to all victims after any court proceedings to determine final restitution amounts.
Following the embezzlement example above, the defendant’s accounts containing $40,000 are frozen. The defendant needs access to funds for living expenses and legal fees. Their attorney files a motion under Subd. 5(a) seeking release. At the hearing, the defendant offers to post a property bond using their unencumbered house (valued well over the $75,000 loss) as surety to guarantee funds will be available for restitution if convicted. The court finds this adequate surety under Subd. 5(b)(1) and orders the freeze on the bank accounts lifted in exchange for the property bond being secured.
In the fraud scheme example, one of the frozen accounts is a joint checking account held by the defendant and their spouse. The spouse was not involved in the alleged criminal activity. The spouse files a motion under Subd. 5(a) seeking release of funds they deposited into the joint account from their own legitimate employment earnings. They provide pay stubs and bank statements proving the source of specific funds currently frozen. The court finds the spouse has met the burden under Subd. 5(b)(4) for those specific funds and orders a partial release of the freeze, allowing the spouse access to their documented, untainted contributions to the joint account.
While Minnesota Statute § 609.532 allows prosecutors to freeze assets pre-trial under specific circumstances, it also explicitly provides avenues for the account holder to challenge the attachment and seek the release of their funds. Subdivision 5 outlines the process and grounds for contesting the freeze. An account holder whose funds have been attached has the right to a court hearing to argue why the freeze should be lifted, either entirely or partially. Successfully challenging the attachment requires presenting specific evidence or legal arguments that meet the criteria laid out in the statute.
Initiating a challenge involves filing a formal motion with the court that issued the attachment order and providing notice to the prosecuting authority. At the subsequent hearing, the account holder (usually through their attorney) presents evidence and arguments supporting one or more of the grounds for release listed in Subdivision 5(b). The court then weighs this information against the initial findings that led to the attachment order. It’s important to note that simply arguing the frozen funds aren’t proceeds of the crime is not a valid basis for release under this statute (Subd. 5(c)); the focus is on the criteria listed in Subd. 5(b).
One of the most direct ways to potentially secure the release of frozen funds is by offering alternative security for potential restitution.
The initial attachment order requires a finding of probable cause that the account holder committed the felony. If new evidence emerges or the initial assessment was flawed, this can be challenged.
The attachment should only secure funds necessary for potential restitution. If the amount frozen far exceeds the alleged loss, a partial release may be warranted.
Joint accounts present specific challenges. If a non-involved party deposited funds, those funds may be released.
This provides a broader, more discretionary basis for seeking release.
It allows prosecutors in Minnesota to get a court order freezing bank accounts or other financial assets belonging to someone charged with a felony, specifically to preserve those assets for potential victim restitution if the person is convicted.
No. It only applies when the person is charged with a felony and the alleged felony resulted in a financial loss of $10,000 or more.
The prosecuting authority (e.g., County Attorney) applies to the court for the attachment order. A judge must approve it based on specific findings.
The prosecutor must provide the criminal complaint (showing a felony charge), state the financial loss ($10k+), identify the accounts, and convince the judge there’s probable cause for the felony and that freezing funds is necessary to ensure potential restitution (Subd. 3).
The court can order “all or part” of the funds frozen (Subd. 3). Often, the amount frozen will correspond to the alleged financial loss caused by the felony, up to the balance available in the identified accounts.
The prosecutor must send you (or your attorney) a copy of the court’s attachment order within ten days after the court issues it (Subd. 8). However, the bank freezes the funds immediately upon receiving the order from the court, which might be before you receive your copy.
Potentially, yes. You have the right to file a motion and request a court hearing to seek the release of some or all of the funds under specific conditions outlined in Subdivision 5(b).
Subdivision 5(b) lists grounds including: posting an adequate bond/surety for restitution; proving no probable cause for the felony; showing the amount frozen exceeds potential restitution; proving funds belong to an innocent joint account holder; or demonstrating release is in the interests of justice (e.g., extreme hardship).
No. Subdivision 5(c) explicitly states it is not grounds for release that the specific funds frozen weren’t directly proceeds from or used in the crime. The freeze aims to secure general assets for potential restitution, regardless of their origin.
The court may order the funds to be used to pay restitution to the victims of the offense (Subd. 6a).
The court must issue an order releasing the freeze, and you regain full access to your funds (Subd. 6b).
The initial freeze expires after 24 months unless the court grants a written extension upon the prosecutor showing good cause (Subd. 7).
Yes, joint accounts can be frozen if the account holder charged with the felony is one of the owners. However, an innocent joint account holder can petition the court to release funds they can prove they deposited from legitimate sources (Subd. 5(b)(4)).
Potentially. You could file a motion seeking release of funds under the “interests of justice” provision (Subd. 5(b)(5)), arguing the freeze prevents you from retaining counsel and mounting a defense. Success depends on the court’s discretion and the specific circumstances.
Yes, it is highly recommended. An attorney can help you understand the order, file the necessary motions to challenge the freeze or seek release of funds, represent you at the hearing, and defend you against the underlying felony charge which ultimately determines the funds’ final disposition.
Even if funds frozen under Minnesota Statute § 609.532 are eventually released (due to acquittal, dismissal, or a successful motion), the act of having one’s financial assets attached, even temporarily, can have significant and lasting negative consequences. This pre-trial measure, while intended to secure potential restitution, immediately disrupts the account holder’s financial life and can create long-term hurdles related to financial stability, creditworthiness, and the ability to manage personal affairs and legal defenses effectively.
The most immediate impact is the inability to access funds needed for daily life. When accounts are frozen, automatic payments for rent/mortgage, utilities, insurance, car loans, and other essential bills may fail, leading to late fees, service disruptions, potential eviction or foreclosure, and damage to credit scores. Access to cash for groceries, transportation, medical needs, and childcare is cut off. This sudden financial paralysis can cause immense stress and instability for the individual and their family, potentially forcing reliance on loans from family/friends or high-interest credit (if available) to cover basic necessities during the freeze period.
Felony charges, especially those involving significant financial loss likely to trigger § 609.532, require a robust legal defense, which often involves substantial attorney fees and costs for investigators or expert witnesses. When a defendant’s primary financial assets are frozen, their ability to retain private counsel or adequately fund their defense is severely hampered. This can force reliance on public defenders (who may face heavy caseloads) or compromise the ability to mount the strongest possible defense against the underlying criminal charges, potentially impacting the case’s outcome and, consequently, the final disposition of the frozen funds.
Failed payments and financial instability resulting from frozen accounts inevitably damage the account holder’s credit score. Furthermore, the attachment order itself can strain the relationship with the financial institution. Banks may view accounts subject to such orders as higher risk, potentially leading to account closures even after the freeze is lifted, or making it harder to open new accounts or obtain loans from that institution in the future. Rebuilding credit and trust with financial institutions after such an event can be a long and difficult process.
Ultimately, the fate of the frozen funds and the most severe long-term consequences are tied to the resolution of the underlying felony charge. Even if funds are released temporarily, a subsequent conviction means they can still be ordered towards restitution. More importantly, the felony conviction itself carries devastating long-term impacts: a permanent criminal record, difficulty finding employment and housing, loss of civil rights (like firearm possession), professional license revocation, and significant social stigma. The attachment order under § 609.532 is often just one early, albeit impactful, component of the much larger and more enduring consequences stemming from the felony prosecution itself.
When a client faces the freezing of their financial assets under Minnesota Statute § 609.532, the role of their attorney becomes immediately critical. This legal action directly impacts the client’s ability to manage their life and fund their defense. An attorney provides essential guidance and advocacy, working to challenge the attachment if grounds exist, seeking the release of necessary funds, and simultaneously defending against the underlying felony charge that triggered the freeze in the first place. Their understanding of both criminal procedure and the specific mechanisms of § 609.532 is vital.
First and foremost, the attorney scrutinizes the prosecutor’s application and the court’s attachment order for compliance with the statute’s requirements. They verify if there was indeed probable cause presented for the felony, if the alleged loss meets the $10,000 threshold, if the accounts were specifically identified, and if the state adequately demonstrated the necessity of the freeze for potential restitution (Subd. 3). If deficiencies exist in the application or the court’s findings, the attorney can immediately file a motion challenging the validity of the attachment order itself, seeking to have it dissolved entirely based on the state’s failure to meet its initial burden.
The attorney actively pursues the release of funds under Subdivision 5 if applicable. They advise the client on the feasibility of posting a bond or surety (Subd. 5(b)(1)) and assist in arranging and presenting this to the court. They gather evidence to challenge probable cause (Subd. 5(b)(2)) or argue the amount frozen is excessive (Subd. 5(b)(3)). Crucially, if the client shares accounts, the attorney helps innocent joint account holders document their legitimate contributions to seek partial release (Subd. 5(b)(4)). They also craft arguments based on the “interests of justice” (Subd. 5(b)(5)), presenting evidence of hardship or the need for funds for legal defense or essential living expenses, advocating for the court’s discretion to release funds.
Ultimately, the attorney recognizes that the attachment under § 609.532 is inextricably linked to the underlying felony case. Defending vigorously against the criminal charges is paramount, as an acquittal or dismissal mandates the release of the frozen funds (Subd. 6b). The attorney manages the criminal defense strategy while remaining mindful of the frozen assets, potentially using the attachment situation in negotiations with the prosecutor. They ensure the client understands that even if funds are released via motion, a conviction could still lead to those assets (or the posted bond) being used for restitution, reinforcing the importance of fighting the primary criminal allegations.
