A judge has ordered the Will County Sheriff’s Office to pay a Mokena man more than $19,000 following the dismissal of a forfeiture case that his attorney claimed involved “outrageous misconduct.”

On Wednesday, Will County Judge Brian Barrett ordered Sheriff Mike Kelley’s Office to pay about $19,000 to James Nowak, 55, after months of legal disputes over how much Nowak should receive following the dismissal of a 2023 forfeiture case.

Barrett set a deadline of seven days for the return of the money to Nowak.

In a statement on Friday, Joliet attorney Frank Andreano, who represents Nowak, contended his client’s stocks were sold without court permission, which cost him “thousands of dollars in penalties and losses.”

“They also took his bank accounts for several years and tried to keep the interest for themselves. It’s outrageous misconduct mixed with greed,” Andreano said.

Andreano said the losses Nowak suffered are the “tip of the iceberg.”

“I have other cases where prosecutors sold millions of dollars of stock illegally and the bill to the sheriff for those cases will be staggering,” Andreano said.

In response, Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Chris Koch said there are “numerous factual and legal errors” in Andreano’s statement.

“The People believe the court erred in its ruling on the People’s motion to reconsider and a notice of appeal will be filed next week,” Koch said.

About $14,770 of the $19,008 amount was in lost profits from Nowak’s investment account containing stocks, according to an Aug. 26 court order from Barrett.

The remaining $4,238 was from interest earned on the money that was seized by the sheriff’s office, according to the court order.

The 2023 forfeiture was filed by prosecutors following the seizure of Nowak’s financial assets in a fraud investigation that led to numerous felony financial crime charges.

The felony case against Nowak is set for a potential jury trial on Dec. 8.

The forfeiture case was voluntarily dismissed on Feb. 24 by prosecutors, court records show. At the time, Barrett ordered the sheriff’s office to return Nowak’s seized property.

In court filings, prosecutors said they complied with Barrett’s order by giving Nowak three checks from seized financial assets. That money totaled about $84,931.

But Andreano argued Nowak should receive the return of “actual shares of stocks” that were seized, plus accrued dividends, along with the interest earned on the seized money.

The issue appeared to have been settled in Barrett’s Aug. 26 court order.

Barrett’s court order said the sheriff’s office had ordered a company handling Nowak’s investment account to convert “stocks and options to cash value,” which is “not allowed.”

Barrett said the Illinois Money Laundering Act requires “safekeeping of seized property” and the “termination of the investment” is not “safekeeping the investment. ”

“This is not a damages situation but a right to return of the property [Nowak] would have if the forfeiting agency had not frozen the investment,” Barrett’s court order said.

Prosecutors filed a motion for Barrett to reconsider his ruling because the sheriff’s office already complied with the “plain language” of the Feb. 24 court order. They said the order did not require the sheriff’s office pay Nowak lost profits or interest.

Prosecutors argued the financial institutions that generated checks of Nowak’s financial accounts, including one regarding his investments, were “proper because they were done pursuant to court order.”

Barrett denied the motion.