A Manhattan couple whose vehicles and investment accounts were seized during a 2023 joint federal and local probe say they were treated as a “high‑value target” by Will County prosecutors, a charge their attorney has now put squarely before a judge. Lawyer Frank Andreano has filed a new motion bolstering his earlier bid for a special prosecutor, pointing to internal training materials the defense says steered staff toward the most lucrative cases. A Will County judge threw out the county’s forfeiture complaint on Jan. 21, and prosecutors have taken that dismissal to the appellate court.
What the motion says
Andreano’s Feb. 20 filing asks a judge to appoint a special prosecutor to scrutinize both federal agents and the county’s forfeiture unit, arguing the forfeiture push aimed at “significant financial punishment” instead of proving criminal conduct, as reported by Shaw Local. The motion cites an internal PowerPoint, prepared by members of State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s office, that the defense says encourages staff to concentrate on “high‑value targets” rather than limited categories of offenses. It also alleges Glasgow’s team obtained Illinois Department of Employment Security records through a U.S. Department of Labor inspector general channel in a way the filing characterizes as sidestepping state privacy protections.
Case history and seized property
The legal fight stems from a Feb. 2023 raid where federal agents and local deputies seized several vehicles along with Fidelity investment accounts that the defense values at roughly $5.5 million, according to the Chicago Tribune. Judges have already signaled discomfort with parts of the government’s forfeiture approach: a transcript from the Jan. 21 hearing shows the judge pressing prosecutors on whether they had evidence that the loans used to purchase the vehicles were actually “criminally derived property.” The couple, Regnier and Keranen, also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in early 2025 accusing the sheriff’s office and the U.S. Secret Service of taking part in what their complaint labels “knowingly frivolous” forfeiture efforts.
Legal questions ahead
Illinois forfeiture statutes let the state seize property tied to alleged financial crimes and spell out how the money is divided. The law routes about 65% of forfeiture proceeds to the investigating agencies, 12.5% to the county or state’s attorney, 12.5% to the state appellate prosecutor and 10% to the Illinois State Police, according to the state code. Defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates argue that split creates perverse incentives and helps explain why some counties have ramped up aggressive forfeiture tactics. Courts now have to sort through statutory, privacy and constitutional issues, including whether investigators obtained records properly and whether the seizures crossed the line into unconstitutional punishment.
Special prosecutor request and appeals
Andreano first moved on Feb. 11 for a special prosecutor and followed up on Feb. 20 with the latest filing, arguing that the pattern of forfeiture cases in Will County reflects “documented abuses,” according to Shaw Local. The motion asks a judge to examine the conduct of the county’s forfeiture unit as well as the federal agents whose investigative work supported the contested forfeiture claims. Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Laura Byrne told reporters the office had no comment “at this time as this matter is currently pending an appeal.”
What to watch next
The state’s appeal of the Jan. 21 dismissal is pending, and the couple still faces separate criminal charges tied to alleged pandemic relief fraud. Local reporting indicates a distinct trial on those counts was set for March 2. If a judge signs off on appointing a special prosecutor, or if an appellate panel weighs in on Barrett’s dismissal, the outcome could help shape local precedent on how aggressively forfeiture laws are deployed and how protected records can be pulled into an investigation. We will be tracking the court dockets as the appeals and motions play out.
