only as an owner of the items); Rojas v. State, 226 Ga. App. 688, 689-690 (487 SE2d 455) (1997) (determining that where the “complaint specifically names the property as defendants and there is nothing in it or the order granting forfeiture that suggests [the property owner] would have any personal liability,” case is “clearly in rem”); see generally Murphy v. State, 267 Ga. 120, 121 (475 SE2d 907) (1996) (explaining that, while OCGA § 16-13-49 has punitive aspects, the statute serves the nonpunitive goals, among others, of rendering illegal behavior unprofitable, ensuring that persons do not profit from their illegal acts, and removing from circulation forbidden items unlawfully used or intended for illegal use); Gravley v. State of Ga., 285 Ga. App. 691, 692 (1) (647 SE2d 372) (2007) (<HOLDING>). 8 Walker, supra at 529-530 (1) (c)
holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture holding that a  881 forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action that is independent of any factually related criminal actions recognizing that although the statute ocga  161349 governing forfeitures is in the criminal code such forfeiture action is a civil proceeding holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct holding a forfeiture provision to be a civil action despite its codification in the states criminal code