5 ms·

The short justification made by those who support asset forfeiture is that it is helping fund state and local law enforcement efforts via ill-gotten gains (esp.

by csa 9y ago

The short justification made by those who support asset forfeiture is that it is helping fund state and local law enforcement efforts via ill-gotten gains (esp. drug money) in a time of budgetary constraints. This actually does not sound unreasonable on the surface if one holds a certain perspective of the law (my personal views differ). That said, the reality is that the asset forfeiture regulations are not well-formed, and the oversight is very far from where it needs to be given the extreme power these laws give to the law enforcement authorities. As such, this effectively leads to a money grab in some areas. This just strikes me as a case of making a potentially reasonable policy (if that's one's perspective on the world), but not creating the proper infrastructure to support it in a transparent way that mainstream citizens would find reasonable. As such, it is very prone to abuse. Note also that the biggest hauls give some federal agencies a tremendous amount budget flexibility. Again, the oversight for this is not well-formed, perhaps intentionally. Note that I personally do not agree with this line of thinking, but I just wanted to explain the perspectives of others who support these decisions.

syshum 9y ago
It is also a problem of people confusing CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, with CIVIL asset forfeiture. CRIMINAL asset forfeiture they can seize drug money provided they prove an individual committed a crime and link that asset to said crime beyond a reasonable doubt Civil Asset forfeiture they have do not have to prove a crime was committed, and the person has to prove they obtained the asset legally. Criminal Asset forfeiture if you can not afford a lawyer one is provided to you, Civil Asset forfeiture you are simply SOL, so if they take $10,000 from you, and a lawyer want $10,000 to fight your case well why bother? Civil Asset Forfeiture is a end run around due process and the constitution
- criddell 9y ago
  Is part of the justification for asset forfeiture to prevent criminals from hiding assets? For example, if my wife (or girlfriend or brother or associate) buys an airplane and I use it to fly drugs from Mexico into the US, then without forfeiture laws I could be charged, but the airplane wouldn't be seized. Is that right? I've heard the argument that money is presumed guilty (or something to that affect) and I've never quite nailed down what that was all about. Does it make sense to you?
  - syshum 9y ago
    It is much harder to prove yes, that said however there are often other crimes committed by the wife/brother/etc like Ta Evasions, Money laundering, etc that would be used so even if the base crime is drug dealing, but the wife/brother/etc if they are getting a Airplane via drug money then chances are there is some other violation of criminal law they did in the transfer of that money to buy the plane. There are 2 common things that lead to a seizure, people have in their possession large sums of money or valubake assets while traveling. A minor crime in commited (like having a small qty of drugs) so the police take unrelated assets sometimes not even owned by the person. Example is when the government seized a persons home because their child had drugs in their room. Most of the cases the government has to prove it is "more likely than not" the property is connected to a criminal event, this is a terribly low standard is given the number of laws on the books easily overcome by most prosecutors However as IJ States in their report Policing for Profit https://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf https://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeit... "if property is used illegally without the owner’s knowledge or consent, the burden is placed on the property owner to establish her innocence in court, not the government to prove otherwise. In other words, a property owner is guilty until proven innocent. " They continue with "In reality, few property owners, especially low-income individuals, can meet the burdens of civil forfeiture proceedings and often do not challenge seizures of their property. This is especially true when government seizes property the value of which would be greatly exceeded by the time, attorney fees and other expenses necessary to fight the forfeiture. As a result, many property owners do not and cannot challenge forfeitures, and the government obtains the property by default." That is what happens most of the time, the process is soooo slanted in favor of the government people just give up and do not even attempt to fight. The government then twists that as being "proof" the property was gotten via illegal means and often cited as the "system working"
  - detaro 9y ago
    The "money is presumed guilty" is that in case of civil asset forfeiture, when e.g. cops search your car and find that you have a few thousand dollars on you (e.g. because you are on your way to buy something expensive in person), they can't easily arrest you for something, since they'd have to prove you did it. But they can say that if someone is traveling by car with a lot of cash, it likely is is drug money and take the cash. Also ends up with legal proceedings then not against you, but against your money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...

by csa 9y ago

syshum 9y ago

It is also a problem of people confusing CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, with CIVIL asset forfeiture. CRIMINAL asset forfeiture they can seize drug money provided they prove an individual committed a crime and link that asset to said crime beyond a reasonable doubt Civil Asset forfeiture they have do not have to prove a crime was committed, and the person has to prove they obtained the asset legally. Criminal Asset forfeiture if you can not afford a lawyer one is provided to you, Civil Asset forfeiture you are simply SOL, so if they take $10,000 from you, and a lawyer want $10,000 to fight your case well why bother? Civil Asset Forfeiture is a end run around due process and the constitution

criddell 9y ago
Is part of the justification for asset forfeiture to prevent criminals from hiding assets? For example, if my wife (or girlfriend or brother or associate) buys an airplane and I use it to fly drugs from Mexico into the US, then without forfeiture laws I could be charged, but the airplane wouldn't be seized. Is that right? I've heard the argument that money is presumed guilty (or something to that affect) and I've never quite nailed down what that was all about. Does it make sense to you?
- syshum 9y ago
  It is much harder to prove yes, that said however there are often other crimes committed by the wife/brother/etc like Ta Evasions, Money laundering, etc that would be used so even if the base crime is drug dealing, but the wife/brother/etc if they are getting a Airplane via drug money then chances are there is some other violation of criminal law they did in the transfer of that money to buy the plane. There are 2 common things that lead to a seizure, people have in their possession large sums of money or valubake assets while traveling. A minor crime in commited (like having a small qty of drugs) so the police take unrelated assets sometimes not even owned by the person. Example is when the government seized a persons home because their child had drugs in their room. Most of the cases the government has to prove it is "more likely than not" the property is connected to a criminal event, this is a terribly low standard is given the number of laws on the books easily overcome by most prosecutors However as IJ States in their report Policing for Profit https://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf https://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeit... "if property is used illegally without the owner’s knowledge or consent, the burden is placed on the property owner to establish her innocence in court, not the government to prove otherwise. In other words, a property owner is guilty until proven innocent. " They continue with "In reality, few property owners, especially low-income individuals, can meet the burdens of civil forfeiture proceedings and often do not challenge seizures of their property. This is especially true when government seizes property the value of which would be greatly exceeded by the time, attorney fees and other expenses necessary to fight the forfeiture. As a result, many property owners do not and cannot challenge forfeitures, and the government obtains the property by default." That is what happens most of the time, the process is soooo slanted in favor of the government people just give up and do not even attempt to fight. The government then twists that as being "proof" the property was gotten via illegal means and often cited as the "system working"
- detaro 9y ago
  The "money is presumed guilty" is that in case of civil asset forfeiture, when e.g. cops search your car and find that you have a few thousand dollars on you (e.g. because you are on your way to buy something expensive in person), they can't easily arrest you for something, since they'd have to prove you did it. But they can say that if someone is traveling by car with a lot of cash, it likely is is drug money and take the cash. Also ends up with legal proceedings then not against you, but against your money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...