3 ms·
But if we're assuming the accused is guilty of some crime with which the booty can be charged, can't you also assume that a man who has been declared not-guilty
by Pxtl 10y ago
But if we're assuming the accused is guilty of some crime with which the booty can be charged, can't you also assume that a man who has been declared not-guilty is guilty of some tangentially-related crime that still allows the civil asset forfeiture?
IE "John Smith is found not guilty of trafficking for the drugs we thought he had on him, but he still could have got the $5000 from some other incidence of trafficking we failed to discover and therefore we're still charging his assets with trafficking".
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agoNot entirely sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that's the how it works. Civil forfeiture is currently allowed because the property is "charged" with a "crime", and because it's not a person it doesn't have the same protections as people (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). So the "innocence" of the property can't be proven, and thus it is forfeited. So rather than "He still could have gotten the $5000 from a crime", they're saying "The $5000 could still have been transacted in a crime", and the guilt or innocence of the person it was taken from is considered irrelevant.
- derefr 10y agoOne interesting contrast for this is in the legal requirements for dealing with counterfeit currency once it's discovered. That really does seem like a case where the person holding the money did nothing wrong, but the money must still be forfeited because the money itself is "doing something wrong" by being counterfeit.