LOS ANGELES (KABC) — Millions of packages move across the country every single day. Many of those go through the FedEx facility in Indianapolis. That’s where they can get taken – not by thieves but by local law enforcement.

“I am just totally stunned that this can happen in America,” California jewelry wholesaler Henry Cheng told Eyewitness News about how he had tens of thousands of dollars seized by another state.

He didn’t want to be identified on camera because he says robbers often target him to steal his merchandise. In this case, he sold items to a client in Virginia. The client sent him $42,000 in a FedEx package. It was stopped in Indianapolis.

“The next thing I know is the police and the prosecutor is forfeiting my money, saying that based solely on suspicions, they didn’t even name the crime that I’ve committed, because I know I have not committed any crime,” Cheng said.

The practice of civil forfeiture is legal and common. It allows local governments to seize property suspected to be involved in criminal activity. Property can be seized without a conviction or charges.

Cheng called police and the prosecutor’s office in Indianapolis and says they wouldn’t give him a reason why the money was taken. He showed authorities the receipt for the sale. He was told it didn’t matter.

“You can get your money back, but you got to go to court,” Cheng said he was told.

A public interest law firm called the Institute for Justice took up the case and filed a lawsuit.

“Civil forfeiture really is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. “It lets governments across the nation take people’s cash, their cars, their homes, without ever convicting them of a crime, without charging them with a crime.”

The Indianapolis FedEx hub is the second largest in the United States, and attorneys claim law enforcement in Indiana is using that to profit because it can keep a large part of the money.

In the affidavit for probable cause, it states one of the reasons the parcel was deemed suspicious and pulled for inspection is simply because it was shipped to California.

“So they describe California as a quote, a source state, a source state for drugs,” Gedge said.

The affidavit in this case adds several other reasons for the package being suspicious: the seams were secured with tape, it was dropped off at a FedEx shipping center. It also states that it contained $100 bills, $50 bills and $20 bills. It claims those denominations are consistent with illegal activities.

“They simply say that there’s been, quote, a violation of a criminal statute. They don’t tell you what criminal statute. They don’t tell you what violation and really it is just a numbers game,” Gedge said.

A numbers game that adds up to a lot of money. Gedge says the prosecutors’ office in Marion County, Indiana has stopped more than 130 packages over the last two years and seized about $2.5 million.

“Oftentimes, to travel to Indiana, if you live in California, to try to litigate a civil forfeiture action, it may very well cost more to hire a lawyer to defend yourself than the amount of money at stake,” Gedge said.

Now after several lawsuits and questions from Eyewitness News and others, Cheng is getting back his money.

“The state came back and said ‘OK, now that we know the full story we’re willing to give the money back,’” Gedge said.

Gedge adds that the government always knew the full story. Nothing changed in the last few months. He said the evidence was always there.

“For people who are willing to lawyer up and spend months filing in the courts and incurring all this time and resources trying to defend their property, sometimes the government just gives up, but of course, a lot of people can’t afford to do that,” Gedge said.

“A lot of people don’t have the good fortune to have free lawyers, and for those people, the government tends not to be quite as ready to give people’s property back,” he added.

Attorneys say the return of the money will not end the case. They counter-sued with a class action lawsuit over the constitutionality of the process used to seize and forfeit assets.