3 ms·
In general I agree with your statement. However, the article clearly states: > A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Mado
by mijoharas 9y ago
In general I agree with your statement. However, the article clearly states:
> A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.
- syshum 9y agoI was referring to the hypothetical of a innocent person buying a car from a drug dealer unknowingly, then at some point in the future the police trace the VIN and seize the car because it had been owned by the drug dealer in the past, then selling that car and giving the money to the victims of said drug dealer that also apparently killed someone. That is the situation the comment I was replying to that was concocted to support Civil Asset Forfeiture Further the article is talking about all Federal Seizures not just Civil Asset Forfeiture, the comments I was replying to isolated that to Civil Asset Forfeiture JPMorgan Chase money on behalf of the Madoff criminal prosecution was not a Civil Asset forfeiture Edit: To add, I have no problem with, and most organizations have no problem with CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, which is where the government charges a person with a crime, convicts them then seizes assets that person owns to pay restitution to victims of crimes. Civil Asset Forfeiture is not that, and where most people object calling it basically theft. The government do not charge anyone with a crime, you are not afforded any due process or rights, and you must prove your property innocent in order to get it back Civil Asset Forfeiture is an end run around the constitution, and basic human rights. it needs to be abolished