that is the basis for the forfeiture action. Actual serial numbers or other detailed descriptions are not required. “b. It shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an action has been removed and replaced by identical property.” Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the issue of possession of cash that is converted into a cashier’s check for the purposes of forfeiture. United States v. Thomas, 319 F.3d 640 (3d Cir.2003). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the approach of other federal circuits, holding that conversion of cash into a fungible surrogate such as a cashier’s check does not undermine in rem jurisdiction for the purposes of forfeiture. Id. at 644. See Madewell v. Downs, 68 F.3d 1030, 1042 n. 14 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); and United States v. $46,588 in United States
holding that deposits of forged checks exposed banks to risk of loss even though they recovered the funds holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding a contract is bilateral where it contains mutual promises made in exchange for each other by each of the two contracting parties holding that assertions of privilege must normally be raised as to each record sought and each question asked so that  the court can rule with specificity holding that currency cashiers checks and bank deposits are simply surrogates for each other and in modern society are cer tainly regarded as fungible when the question is ownership of the funds each represents