3 ms·

> which pits the bank against a warrantless seizure that's impossible to defend in court Your argument could equally be applied against regular (cash) civil as

by rlpb 10y ago

> which pits the bank against a warrantless seizure that's impossible to defend in court Your argument could equally be applied against regular (cash) civil asset forfeiture. The outcome is the same either way. "Sorry, it was authorised by the authorities, nothing we can do". You'll be short of the money until you sue, same as in regular civil asset forfeiture. When you do sue, you'll have to prove that you're entitled to the money, same as in regular civil asset forfeiture. What you get back will be less legal fees, same as in regular civil asset forfeiture.

tantalor 10y ago
> it was authorised by the authorities It was not authorized by the card holder or a court order, so it is fraud.
- random28345 10y ago
  > It was not authorized by the card holder or a court order, so it is fraud. Sorry, you're wrong. I've had the IRS steal money directly from my bank account to pay for taxes (and fees, and fines) I didn't owe. The bank won't help you, and I had to pay a tax lawyer $1,800 to get back $3,200 in taxes (and fines) from the IRS for a stock sale I never made. The bank treats withdrawals by government agencies as legitimate transactions. They won't recognize it as fraud, and you won't get the money back from the bank.
  - tantalor 10y ago
    I think the IRS is a special case; I'd add them to the list I gave above. A local police department or city government does not have this power. Update: few more examples: http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/wage-garnishment-amount.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/wage-garnishm..., apparently this is quite common; still don't think PD can do it for this reason
    - Qantourisc 10y ago
      The IRS should NOT be a special case. They should also pass trough a court (for what it's worth).
adventured 10y ago
The 'authorities' you're referring to, do not in fact have any legal authority to conduct that transaction. You're wrong entirely in your premise. What they're doing, is using force to steal property without any authorization. The line you'll get in fact will not be that it was authorized by the authorities and there's nothing that can be done. Banking is federally regulated, it is not regulated by the state police in Oklahoma. The matter of jurisdiction when you start fraudulently stealing from bank accounts (which in many cases would naturally also be out of state and otherwise national banks, and or even virtual banks) is without question: it's a federal matter. Cash and card are not the same. The very obvious difference between cash and card is that you can charge back via a card. The cash is physical and must be physically recovered from their possession (protected by their guns). That's a very substantial and fortunate difference for the card holder.

by rlpb 10y ago

tantalor 10y ago

> it was authorised by the authorities It was not authorized by the card holder or a court order, so it is fraud.

random28345 10y ago
> It was not authorized by the card holder or a court order, so it is fraud. Sorry, you're wrong. I've had the IRS steal money directly from my bank account to pay for taxes (and fees, and fines) I didn't owe. The bank won't help you, and I had to pay a tax lawyer $1,800 to get back $3,200 in taxes (and fines) from the IRS for a stock sale I never made. The bank treats withdrawals by government agencies as legitimate transactions. They won't recognize it as fraud, and you won't get the money back from the bank.
- tantalor 10y ago
  I think the IRS is a special case; I'd add them to the list I gave above. A local police department or city government does not have this power. Update: few more examples: http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/wage-garnishment-amount.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/wage-garnishm..., apparently this is quite common; still don't think PD can do it for this reason
  - Qantourisc 10y ago
    The IRS should NOT be a special case. They should also pass trough a court (for what it's worth).

adventured 10y ago

The 'authorities' you're referring to, do not in fact have any legal authority to conduct that transaction. You're wrong entirely in your premise. What they're doing, is using force to steal property without any authorization. The line you'll get in fact will not be that it was authorized by the authorities and there's nothing that can be done. Banking is federally regulated, it is not regulated by the state police in Oklahoma. The matter of jurisdiction when you start fraudulently stealing from bank accounts (which in many cases would naturally also be out of state and otherwise national banks, and or even virtual banks) is without question: it's a federal matter. Cash and card are not the same. The very obvious difference between cash and card is that you can charge back via a card. The cash is physical and must be physically recovered from their possession (protected by their guns). That's a very substantial and fortunate difference for the card holder.