Can They Keep Their Houses?

Timothy M. Burke, Fraternal Law Partners, tburke@manleyburke.com

Danielle E. Bechard, Manley Burke LPA, danielle.bechard@manleyburke.com

On August 17, 2026, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, David Sunday, announced the arrests of fourteen people related to a cocaine ring operating out of two fraternity houses at Penn State University.^[1] This announcement became nationally reported news overnight. Among the most shocking of the announcement by Attorney General Sunday was his statement that “[i]n fact, according to the evidence uncovered, cutting and packaging cocaine was, for some pledges, an indoctrination into the fraternities.”^[2]

Who could have predicted that requiring pledges to take part in a cocaine ring would become a form of hazing?

Thirteen of those arrested were either current or former Penn State students at the time of their arrests. The statement released by Attorney General Sunday, reports that “[a]ccording to the investigation and a grand jury presentment, two members of the organization —Agostino Abbatiello and Thomas Robinson — were the main suppliers for the group, making regular trips to Philadelphia and New York for large quantities of cocaine. The cocaine was then cut and packaged — primarily at the Delta Upsilon and Sigma Chi fraternity houses — and distributed mainly to Penn State University students.”^[3]

Four of those arrested are charged with felony corrupt organizations, conspiracy, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity and related offenses. A fifth person was charged with felony conspiracy and criminal use of a communication facility and related misdemeanors. Eight other student-aged defendants are facing misdemeanor counts of possession and paraphernalia of drugs. The fourteenth defendant, the father of one of the alleged ringleaders, who is also a lawyer, according to the Attorney General, is charged with “felony tampering, hindering apprehension for taking steps to conceal evidence, including a safe containing drugs and cash, and obstructing the investigation.”^[4] At this point, the crime of hazing is not included in any of the charges described by the Attorney General.

However, one issue not addressed in the massive amount of publicity associated with these arrests, is the question of what could happen to the two off-campus fraternity houses. It is certainly possible that either the United States government through the Justice Department, or the State of Pennsylvania could attempt to seize the houses.

Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act provides for that possibility:

“The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the commonwealth and no property right shall exist in them: (6)(i)(C) real property used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act…. including structures or other improvements thereon, and including any right, title and interest in the whole or any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used or intended to be used in any manner or part to commit or facilitate a commission of a violation.” 42 PA Cons Stat Sec. 5802(6)(i)(C).

Federal law has similar provisions allowing for the seizure of property, including 21 U.S.C. Section 881(a)(7) which allows any real property “used, or intended to be used in any manner of part to commit, or to facilitate the commission of a violation of” federal drug laws subject to forfeiture. Also, The Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual, which is available online, published by the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice provides a 230-page detailed instruction on how to properly forfeit assets that had been involved in violations of the criminal law.^[5]

If the two houses involved in this case were subject to seizure, it would not be the first time that fraternity houses which had become the locus for the operation of a drug ring were seized. For example, as was reported in the September 1991 issue of Fraternal Law in the article, “Busted! Consequences of the Drug Raid at UVA,” three University of Virginia fraternity houses were seized by the federal government a week before classes were scheduled to commence for the fall term in the 1991-92 academic year. The UVA fraternities involved were later able to recover their fraternity houses, however, that is not always a possibility. The federal government has the choice to sell or to retain possession of the seized property. 21 U.S. Code Section 881(e)(1)(A). Also see “Drug Raid Results in Seizure of Fraternity House,” Fraternal Law, March 1997 describing the seizure of the Phi Gamma Delta house at Ohio University.

There are defenses that the owners of a house may have and protections that may be available for mortgage holders. As discussed in “Busted! Consequences of the Drug Raid at UVA,” if the board of directors of the house corporation which owns the property had neither knowledge of nor gave consent for illegal drug activity, there is a good chance that a fraternity house may be returned to the fraternity owners. However, if the board of directors of the housing corporation were put on notice of illegal drug use and/or operation, the board of directors have an affirmative duty to take various steps, including consulting an attorney and conducting an investigation. If the board of directors failed to properly take the necessary action, the fraternity house would likely need to be bought back, that is, if the governmental entity decides to sell the house after seizure.

[1] Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, AG Sunday, State College Police Announce Charges Against 14 People in Cocaine Trafficking Ring Involving Penn State U. Students, Fraternities (Aug. 17, 2026) https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/ag-sunday-state-college-police-announce-charges-against-14-people-in-cocaine-trafficking-ring-involving-penn-state-u-students-fraternities/

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2025, Chap. 5, Real Property.