PHOENIX — A Glendale small business owner has joined forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge the federal government’s seizure of cash, computers, and other property during a February 2025 raid on his business.
Mario Ayala, owner of Ayala’s Mini Market, filed a motion in federal court this week seeking the return of property seized by federal agents more than a year and a half ago. Ayala maintains that he has never been told what he allegedly did wrong, nor has he been given a meaningful opportunity to challenge the seizure.
The Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm and leading opponent of civil asset forfeiture, is representing Ayala. Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and potentially keep property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even when the owner has not been charged with a crime.
“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.”
Federal Agents Raid Glendale Business
In February 2025, Ayala was visiting his dying father outside the United States when he learned that agents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had raided his business.
The operation was part of a series of raids targeting money services businesses (MSBs) throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area.
According to the court filing, agents arrived at Ayala’s Mini Market with a search warrant marked “under seal.” The investigation appears to have centered on suspicions of structuring, a federal offense involving the deliberate division of large financial transactions into smaller amounts to evade reporting requirements.
However, Ayala and his attorneys maintain that federal authorities have never presented evidence demonstrating that his business engaged in structuring or any other illegal activity.
During the raid, agents questioned employees for hours before seizing cash, business records, computers, and personal cell phones.
Before leaving, agents provided an inventory of the confiscated property, but the list did not specify the amount of cash taken. They reportedly told employees that the business could continue operating and that Ayala would receive additional information about the investigation and the next steps.
According to Ayala, that information never arrived.
Small Business Owner Seeks Answers
The raid disrupted Ayala’s business and placed a significant financial burden on his family. Despite repeated efforts to recover his property and obtain answers, he says federal authorities have failed to provide meaningful information about the case.
“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.”
Money services businesses such as Ayala’s provide essential financial services, particularly in underserved communities where residents may lack access to traditional banking.
These businesses offer check cashing, bill payment, and money transfer services, often serving customers who do not have bank accounts. Because cash transactions are central to their operations, MSBs frequently maintain substantial cash reserves.
They are also subject to extensive federal financial regulations, including strict anti-money laundering and reporting requirements.
Legal Challenge Raises Constitutional Questions
Ayala’s attorneys argue that the government’s prolonged retention of his property violates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The filing also raises potential violations of two federal laws:
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA): Generally requires the federal government to provide notice of an intended administrative forfeiture within 90 days of a seizure conducted under a federal criminal investigation, subject to statutory exceptions.
Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act: Restricts the IRS from seizing property solely on the basis of suspected structuring when no other criminal activity is supported by the evidence.
The bipartisan RESPECT Act was named in recognition of former Institute for Justice clients Jeff Hirsch and Randy Sowers, whose experiences helped expose concerns about federal seizure practices.
Ayala’s case raises broader questions about the government’s authority to hold private property for extended periods without filing criminal charges or providing property owners with a clear process to contest the seizure.
Through the federal court action, Ayala and the Institute for Justice are seeking the return of his property and accountability for what they contend was an unlawful and unjustified seizure.
Be the first to comment