The State of Georgia wants Young Thug to forfeit property seized during his arrest in May.
According to court documents obtained by AllHipHop, a complaint for forfeiture was filed over items seized from Young Thug and Lil Duke. The two were among the 28 people indicted in a sweeping RICO case against YSL members.
Authorities seized $149,426.00 in U.S. currency. Officers snatched firearms and several vehicles, including a Corvette and a Porsche.
Cops took 87 pieces of jewelry. The accessories included an 18k Gold Patek Philippe and a Rolex with “King Slime” engraved on the back, among other watches.
Multiple pendants, bracelets, necklaces, rings and earrings were seized. Many of the items had custom engravings, such as “YSL X BC 4 LIFE.” Cops also grabbed clothing from Young Thug, whose real name is Jeffery Williams.
“Officers located and seized from inside the kitchen of Mr. Williams’ 355 Allison Drive residence a green hooded sweatshirt on which there was printed the phrase ‘SLIME OVER S#### Make America Slime Again,'” the court documents disclosed.
Rafaello & Company claimed to own some of the jewelry seized by cops. The owner said nine pieces were loaned to Young Thug.
Young Thug denied Rafaello & Company had any “lawful interest” in the seized property. Officials could only identify four items that possibly belonged to the jeweler.
“Of the 9 jewelry pieces which Rafaello & Company Inc. asserts to own and to have lent to Mr. Williams, only 4 pieces resemble any of the pieces of jewelry seized on May 9, 2022,” authorities declared. “The other 5 pieces of jewelry do not resemble any of the pieces of jewelry seized on May 9, 2022.”
Young Thug’s lawyer Brian Steel responded to the complaint for forfeiture by contending the property was unlawfully seized.
“Forfeiture of the seized property is barred by the prohibition against excessive fines set forth in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Steel argued.
The attorney added, “[Young Thug] is the lawful owner of the seized property. Claimant obtained the seized property through legitimate transactions whereby the property was either purchased in lawful arms length transactions and the money used to purchase said seized property was lawfully earned through legitimate employment; or the items were gifted to Claimant by persons who have untainted funds.”
Steel asked for the complaint for forfeiture to be dismissed. He requested a monetary award to cover attorney’s fees and expenses.
