4 ms·
You didn't mention a trial in your previous post, but rather a low standard of evidence to "make a claim". In that scenario, the burden of proof is on the victi
by facetube 10y ago
You didn't mention a trial in your previous post, but rather a low standard of evidence to "make a claim". In that scenario, the burden of proof is on the victim of the property seizure rather than the accuser, which makes it different IMO.
- harryh 10y agoThe burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture trials (and there is a trial) is still on the plaintiff. It is not on the victim.
- facetube 10y agoFalse, at least in the US. The government's case is considered to be against the property, not against you. The standard of legal proof is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assets [are only] returned if [the] owner proves [his/her] innocence". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... for details.
- harryh 10y ago"preponderance of evidence" is still a burden on the plaintiff. It's just a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".
- facetube 10y agoIn practice in the United States it's been shown to present little to no burden. These cases have been widely covered in the press. Again, see the link.