4 ms·
If it's "clear" the money result from illegal activity, they will be charged with a crime. Surely you are not advocating replacing the courts with truthiness an
by JetSpiegel 10y ago
If it's "clear" the money result from illegal activity, they will be charged with a crime.
Surely you are not advocating replacing the courts with truthiness and gut feelings?
- harryh 10y agoNo, I'm just saying that the legal standard for proving that property (usually money) was obtained illegally is lower than the legal standard for convicting someone for a crime and throwing them in jail. Asset forfeiture is, and always has been, subject to judicial oversight.
- 15charlimit 10y agoThe entire point of this story (and others like it) is precisely that there is NO judicial oversight over this kind of police theft.
- harryh 10y agoThat is a misreading of the story. This story outlines a method that allows law enforcement to confiscate money stored on pre-paid credit cards in a similar fashion to how they've previously confiscated cash. It says nothing at all about judicial oversite. There are, in fact, well established and relatively simple procedures for contesting civil forfeiture. There is a fair argument to be made that they sometimes don't work as well as they should but when you say that there is "NO judicial oversight" at all you are just just flat out wrong. You need to update your worldview if you want it to conform to reality.