4 ms·

It's easy for them to conclude, with no due process. They just say so, take the money, and leave you having to file suit and fight the government to get your ow

• emodendroket 10y ago
  > Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime is. I'm not sure why it's a travesty that it's illegal to conceal the source of illegally-earned money.
  • mindslight 10y ago
    The entire purpose of money is to be fungible. $1 is worth exactly the same as another $1. Inventing the crime of "money laundering" erodes the very concept of money by making its exchange value dependent on who you know and how politically connected they are. Furthermore, forcing people to structure their activities to be legible to the government is making everybody work as an informant against themselves.
    • gohrt 10y ago
      That dollar is still worth a dollar after it it seized from the criminal who stole it. Same as any stolen property.
      • mindslight 10y ago
        "Money laundering" and "stolen" are orthogonal. "Money laundering" is usually persecuted against someone suspected of doing legitimate business that the government doesn't like, and sometimes even against people who are simply pushing back against that FINCEN >$10k surveillance. You can tell it's one of those specious "laws" that actually destroys the rule of law because it flips the script to guilty until proven innocent.
    • marcosdumay 10y ago
      By one perspective, I'm always welcoming laws that make it harder for corrupt politicians to do their things, while having only mild effects on honest citizens. By another perspective, your comment is spot on, and it destroys a fundamental theoretical characteristic of money. By yet another perspective, the more recent versions of those laws make it just too easy for governments to spy on every citizen. Although it is not as bad as spying on communications, it can become very bad in the future. And, finally, by another perspective, I can't recall a single politician caught by the information those laws make available. And I live in Brazil - I've already lost count of the politician arrests of this week.
      • Torgo 10y ago
        Eliot Spitzer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_sca... Just not for the actual purpose of the law, haha. Which probably strengthens your argument.
  • didgeoridoo 10y ago
    Because "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Unless you think "due process" == "Because I said so", it is both legally and morally a travesty.
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; which is not to say that certain applications of it are not deeply problematic, but hyperbole is not helpful in discussing them.
      • snsr 10y ago
        > Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so" Not really - the DEA, state and local police regularly steal cash and other belongings from US citizens without any probable cause.
      • snark42 10y ago
        > Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; Not at all... It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across the country.
        • dragonwriter 10y ago
          > It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." Except, not, because the government bears the burden of proving that it is drug money, assuming you assert a claim that the funds should not be subject to forfeiture. (If they meet that burden and you wish to keep the money anyway by invoking the innocent owner principal, you have the burden of proving that you were not involved in the illegal conduct that made the money subject to forfeiture or acted to end it as soon as you became aware, though.) > The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent No, though there is a legitimate issue that it may be difficult to afford decent representation to do a good job of countering the government's attempt to prove your money guilty if, you know, the government's just seized your life savings. (This is actually related to the reason I am inclined to think that the right to publicly-provided counsel ought to apply in any legal case pursued against an indigent defendant by the government, whether or not it is a criminal case.)
  • pc86 10y ago
    Money laundering doesn't care if the source is illegal. I can earn money working a regular, taxed job, and if I take steps to conceal the source of that money I will go to prison.
    • emodendroket 10y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but this is what WP says: > The law, contained at section 1956 of Title 18 of the United States Code, prohibits individuals from engaging in a financial transaction with proceeds that were generated from certain specific crimes, known as "specified unlawful activities" (SUAs). The law requires that an individual specifically intend in making the transaction to conceal the source, ownership or control of the funds.
  • ubernostrum 10y ago
    People here seem to be of the opinion that we have a system and process for prosecuting people suspected of crimes, and should use it rather than inventing a separate procedure with radically lower burden of proof and significantly less due process for the person involved. In other words: if someone's suspected of money laundering, charge them with money laundering, convict them of it and then seize the money after the conviction is obtained.
    • emodendroket 10y ago
      I agree with that, but the parent comment is specifically suggesting that money laundering should not be a crime.