5 ms·

>Parhamovich told The Associated Press that he was traveling to several performances in Western states and decided to bring his “life savings” because maintenan

>Parhamovich told The Associated Press that he was traveling to several performances in Western states and decided to bring his “life savings” because maintenance staff often came into his rented apartment in Madison, Wisconsin. The 50-year-old hid the money inside a speaker he was bringing along on the trip. [...] Parhamovich said the officers implied that carrying that much cash was illegal. He lied and said it was a friend’s. He brought his “life savings” with him on a road trip, hidden in a speaker, and then lied to the police about it. It doesn’t take a cynic to see how ridiculously suspicious that is. There’s plenty of material to start a civil forfeiture case, where the government has to ultimately prove by a preponderance of the evidence (ie “more likely than not”) that the money was the proceeds of illegal activity, the same standard as lawsuits between private citizens. This is not a theft or robbery. It’s the police failing to convince a court in the end. Why seize things upfront in cases like this? If they let the money go, the government would likely never see it again. The goal is to stop organized crime from successfully moving money around and laundering it. It was only a few decades ago that organized crime operated with near impunity in this country. Laws such as RICO and those strengthening civil asset forfeiture are no small part of our success in turning the tide against criminal organizations. It’s easy to forget how we got here, but if we let uninformed outrage rule the day, then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread fear and violence without consequence. It is always worth investigating reform, but you should think twice about demonizing those who are carrying out the instructions we gave them. ========================== Edit: HN is rate-limiting me, so I’m responding to erpellan’s very good point here: You’re right that it’s not sufficient reason for seizure by itself, it’s actually been litigated to that effect before iirc. But combined with other factors, like lying to the police (a crime itself in many jurisdictions as Michael Flynn has just learned), it can help establish the burden of proof necessary for seizure pending litigation. (Further, he consented to the seizure in this case.)

mikestew 9y ago
then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread fear and violence without consequence. Sorry, got lost about the second paragraph: are we talking about cops like the ones in the article, or the Mafia?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >Sorry, got lost about the second paragraph: are we talking about cops like the ones in the article, or the Mafia? You’ve ignored the entire substance of the argument and produced a retort that people who agree with you will like. I think that accomplishes nothing but lower the standard of discourse and miss an opportunity for mutual understanding.
  - throwaway-hn123 9y ago
    Well it destroyed your fatuous argument, so yeah, feels bad man.
  - mikestew 9y ago
    I ignored nothing. On the contrary, I thought it was a clever way to say, “you’re not making a strong argument that the current situation is an improvement”. Because I’ve run across crooked cops, but to my knowledge have never had an interaction with a member of the mob.
chris_wot 9y ago
I don't care how suspicious it is. Unless they have seen him or have evidence he committed a crime, then they don't take his money. If that makes the life of the police more difficult, so what?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  The entire global anti money laundering system disagrees with you. The digital equivalent of physical seizure, freezing bank accounts, happens on the basis of well-premised suspicion all the time. We would have no chance of denying money to organized crime otherwise.
  - jjoonathan 9y ago
    It should work this way because it does work this way? What?
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      >It should work this way because it does work this way? What? You’re just willfully ignoring my argument at this point. It should broadly work this way because it’s proven effective in combating organized crime. Disagree if you’d like, but don’t pretend that I’m not giving a reason. =============================== Edit: I’m rate limited, but in response to ng12: I agree that it’s important to keep in mind the balance between civil liberties and effective law enforcement. They are competing and worthy interests necessarily in tension. I think the unique problems of money laundering and illegal money-in-transit justify a system that allows the police, acting on an appropriate level of suspicion (e.g. probable cause), to seize pending further due process. There is definitely room for reform, especially in how that further due process works, and in creating disincentives for overzealous seizures. itrontron, law enforcement powers certainly protect civil liberties too, but also necessarily define their limits. Your right to liberty ends where the state’s right to detain you starts. Your right to property extends to where the state’s right to seize it begins. And so forth.
      - 9y ago
amorphid 9y ago
If the police didn't blatantly seize assets , you wouldn't need to hide & fail to mention a sizeable amount of cash. Taking advantage those who, post-seizure, cannot afford to make a case for themselves is the opposite of "to protect & serve". Isn't it?
erpellan 9y ago
I agree it looks odd but you know what? It's NOT illegal to travel with ANY quantity of cash. No matter how suspicious it looks. The burden of proof of a crime still lies (or should lie but clearly doesn't) with law enforcement.
jstarfish 9y ago
I agree with you with regards to how we got here, but the problem is that where the government fails to prove you're a mule for the cartel or that you're moving Mafia blood money, they ought to give it back. You lose everything based on accusation alone. In keeping the money without cause, civil forfeiture becomes just another shakedown.
hajile 9y ago
Civil asset forfeiture is never justified. If you don't have a case, you don't have a case. 'Acting suspicious" warrants asking questions, NOT taking things when those questions don't turn up anything. The idea that it stops organized crime is also rediculous. No crime Lord was ever brought down by civil asset forfeiture. They work that statistic into their prices like any other for-profit Enterprise would and go on with business as usual. I'd also clear up the "given orders" bit. You cannot really make a good case for police departments ordering their officers to simply take any and all money they see. That is left to the officers discretion. In this case, the officer decided to abuse his power over the general population. To take your orders idea to the end; Let's assume that the police department as a whole requires such theft. We aren't in a country without freedom of the press. Any one of those officers could (and indeed had a duty to) record and publish the illegal order. If such an order exists, then EVERY officer is willingly complicit. Finally, let's say that we do need limited ability to lock up people's things. That should most definitely involve a case against the individual rather than against the possession itself. It should involve the rights to an expidited trial. Most importantly, it should involve a large burden of proof like any criminal case rather than simple majority.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Lying to police is more than acting suspicious. I’m not claiming that police have a moral carte blanche for overzealous seizures. I’m saying that when they do their duty in good faith and then lose in court, we shouldn’t jump to calling them robbers. To your last point, the standard in civil court is preponderance/more-likely-than-not/“majority”. Civil asset forfeiture is not a criminal conviction, carries no risk of prison time, and involves solely the transfer of property from one (who is not entitled to it) to another (who is at least more entitled to it). If I sue you for everything you’re worth, or claim rightful ownership of your land in an action directly on the property, I only need to prove my case by a preponderance. Why should it be any different here? A lot is made over the fact that the civil action is against the property instead of the person it’s being seized from. This isn’t as relevant as it sounds and it has nothing to do with the standard of proof being lower: the standard in all civil cases is preponderance of the evidence. The suit is against the property because it’s an in rem lawsuit where the only thing being litigated is the disposition of the property. They are not trying to prove that the person it was seized from did anything illegal, just that the asset itself is the proceeds of a crime, whoever may have committed that crime.

mikestew 9y ago

then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread fear and violence without consequence. Sorry, got lost about the second paragraph: are we talking about cops like the ones in the article, or the Mafia?

marcoperaza 9y ago
>Sorry, got lost about the second paragraph: are we talking about cops like the ones in the article, or the Mafia? You’ve ignored the entire substance of the argument and produced a retort that people who agree with you will like. I think that accomplishes nothing but lower the standard of discourse and miss an opportunity for mutual understanding.
- throwaway-hn123 9y ago
  Well it destroyed your fatuous argument, so yeah, feels bad man.
- mikestew 9y ago
  I ignored nothing. On the contrary, I thought it was a clever way to say, “you’re not making a strong argument that the current situation is an improvement”. Because I’ve run across crooked cops, but to my knowledge have never had an interaction with a member of the mob.

chris_wot 9y ago

I don't care how suspicious it is. Unless they have seen him or have evidence he committed a crime, then they don't take his money. If that makes the life of the police more difficult, so what?

marcoperaza 9y ago
The entire global anti money laundering system disagrees with you. The digital equivalent of physical seizure, freezing bank accounts, happens on the basis of well-premised suspicion all the time. We would have no chance of denying money to organized crime otherwise.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  It should work this way because it does work this way? What?
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >It should work this way because it does work this way? What? You’re just willfully ignoring my argument at this point. It should broadly work this way because it’s proven effective in combating organized crime. Disagree if you’d like, but don’t pretend that I’m not giving a reason. =============================== Edit: I’m rate limited, but in response to ng12: I agree that it’s important to keep in mind the balance between civil liberties and effective law enforcement. They are competing and worthy interests necessarily in tension. I think the unique problems of money laundering and illegal money-in-transit justify a system that allows the police, acting on an appropriate level of suspicion (e.g. probable cause), to seize pending further due process. There is definitely room for reform, especially in how that further due process works, and in creating disincentives for overzealous seizures. itrontron, law enforcement powers certainly protect civil liberties too, but also necessarily define their limits. Your right to liberty ends where the state’s right to detain you starts. Your right to property extends to where the state’s right to seize it begins. And so forth.
    - 9y ago

amorphid 9y ago

If the police didn't blatantly seize assets , you wouldn't need to hide & fail to mention a sizeable amount of cash. Taking advantage those who, post-seizure, cannot afford to make a case for themselves is the opposite of "to protect & serve". Isn't it?

erpellan 9y ago

I agree it looks odd but you know what? It's NOT illegal to travel with ANY quantity of cash. No matter how suspicious it looks. The burden of proof of a crime still lies (or should lie but clearly doesn't) with law enforcement.

jstarfish 9y ago

I agree with you with regards to how we got here, but the problem is that where the government fails to prove you're a mule for the cartel or that you're moving Mafia blood money, they ought to give it back. You lose everything based on accusation alone. In keeping the money without cause, civil forfeiture becomes just another shakedown.

hajile 9y ago

Civil asset forfeiture is never justified. If you don't have a case, you don't have a case. 'Acting suspicious" warrants asking questions, NOT taking things when those questions don't turn up anything. The idea that it stops organized crime is also rediculous. No crime Lord was ever brought down by civil asset forfeiture. They work that statistic into their prices like any other for-profit Enterprise would and go on with business as usual. I'd also clear up the "given orders" bit. You cannot really make a good case for police departments ordering their officers to simply take any and all money they see. That is left to the officers discretion. In this case, the officer decided to abuse his power over the general population. To take your orders idea to the end; Let's assume that the police department as a whole requires such theft. We aren't in a country without freedom of the press. Any one of those officers could (and indeed had a duty to) record and publish the illegal order. If such an order exists, then EVERY officer is willingly complicit. Finally, let's say that we do need limited ability to lock up people's things. That should most definitely involve a case against the individual rather than against the possession itself. It should involve the rights to an expidited trial. Most importantly, it should involve a large burden of proof like any criminal case rather than simple majority.

marcoperaza 9y ago
Lying to police is more than acting suspicious. I’m not claiming that police have a moral carte blanche for overzealous seizures. I’m saying that when they do their duty in good faith and then lose in court, we shouldn’t jump to calling them robbers. To your last point, the standard in civil court is preponderance/more-likely-than-not/“majority”. Civil asset forfeiture is not a criminal conviction, carries no risk of prison time, and involves solely the transfer of property from one (who is not entitled to it) to another (who is at least more entitled to it). If I sue you for everything you’re worth, or claim rightful ownership of your land in an action directly on the property, I only need to prove my case by a preponderance. Why should it be any different here? A lot is made over the fact that the civil action is against the property instead of the person it’s being seized from. This isn’t as relevant as it sounds and it has nothing to do with the standard of proof being lower: the standard in all civil cases is preponderance of the evidence. The suit is against the property because it’s an in rem lawsuit where the only thing being litigated is the disposition of the property. They are not trying to prove that the person it was seized from did anything illegal, just that the asset itself is the proceeds of a crime, whoever may have committed that crime.