USCA1 Opinion

          August 7, 1992







                                 ____________________


          No. 92-1073
              92-1237

                              JESUS M. SANCHEZ, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________


                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                        Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ____________________

               Antonio Cordova-Gonzalez for appellants.
               ________________________
               Jose F. Blanco, Assistant  United States Attorney, with whom
               ______________
          Daniel  F. Lopez  Romo,  United States  Attorney,  and Miguel  A.
          ______________________                                 __________
          Fernandez, Assistant  United States Attorney, were  on brief, for
          _________
          the United States.

                                 ____________________



                                 ____________________
















                    Per  Curiam.    Following  the civil  forfeiture  of  a
                    ___________

          substantial  amount of cash that had been  buried on a small farm

          in Puerto  Rico, 21 U.S.C.    881(a)(6),  the present  plaintiffs

          instituted a separate civil action wherein they alleged that they

          were entitled  to  some or  all  of the  money  as finders  of  a

          "treasure trove."  The  district court dismissed the action.   We

          affirm.

                    It  is apodictic  that, if  a forfeiture  proceeding is

          properly  instituted and  consummated,  the  resultant decree  is

          "conclusive upon the whole world" and competing claims to the res
                                                                        ___

          cannot  thereafter  be  litigated  in  a  subsequent  proceeding.

          Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 246, 320 (1818).   Consistent
          _______    ____

          with this time-honored principle,  it is the general rule  that a

          decree of forfeiture cannot ordinarily be subjected to collateral

          attack in the  courts.1  We see no basis  for departing from this

          settled rule in  the instant case.  The proper  place to litigate

          the  legality and validity  of the forfeiture,  and all competing

          claims to  the property seized,  is in the  forfeiture proceeding

          itself.  United States v. Hernandez,  911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir.
                   _____________    _________

          1990).



                    Affirmed.  Double costs in favor of appellee.
                    ____________________________________________



                              
          ____________________

               1A final decree of forfeiture can, of course, be ameliorated
          administratively by  remission or mitigation.   See  19 U.S.C.   
                                                          ___
          1618;  see also United States v. One Clipper Bow Ketch NISKU, 548
                 ___ ____ _____________    ___________________________
          F.2d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1977).

                                          2