5 ms·

The entire global anti money laundering system disagrees with you. The digital equivalent of physical seizure, freezing bank accounts, happens on the basis of w

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.
  - ng12 9y ago
    Maybe not everybody's willing to sacrifice individual liberty at the holy altar of "stopping crime"?
    - ng12 9y ago
      Responding to your comment above: How can you call that "due process"? In these cases the money is never proven to be of illegal origin, the owner never convicted of a crime. I agree with you that there's a balancing act but civil forfeiture has fallen off the tightrope long ago.
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        The money is proven to be of illegal evidence, in a civil lawsuit. It is the same standard by which I can sue you for everything that you’re worth: preponderance of the evidence. It’s a lower standard than criminal court.
        ng12 9y ago
        I don't think that's true. There was no lawsuit for the civil seizure incidents I've read about, including the one described in the article. Hypothetically, even if that were true, does that not sound crazy to you? That the government would launch a civil suit against you for the crime of possessing money? Edit: Just read that you're in law school. You truly terrify me.
        dang 9y ago
        Personal attacks will get your account banned. Please don't do this again. Edit: It looks, unfortunately, like you have made a habit of skimping on civility in your comments on HN. That is not the kind of site we want, so please up your game if you want to keep posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - itronitron 9y ago
    Civil liberties and effective law enforcement are not competing interests. Many laws exist to protect civil liberties and therefore an essential aspect of law enforcement is to protect civil liberties.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I agree that it’s important to keep in mind the balance between civil liberties and effective law enforcement. Civil liberties are not opposed to effective law enforcement; enforced guarantees of civil liberties are a key means by which law enforcement is made to actually enforce the law effectively by doing the work to identify actual wrongdoers and hold them accountable rather than presenting the illusion of effectiveness by setting up easy scapegoats and/or using “law enforcement” as a pretext for implementing the personal interests of the law enforcers.

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.
- ng12 9y ago
  Maybe not everybody's willing to sacrifice individual liberty at the holy altar of "stopping crime"?
  - ng12 9y ago
    Responding to your comment above: How can you call that "due process"? In these cases the money is never proven to be of illegal origin, the owner never convicted of a crime. I agree with you that there's a balancing act but civil forfeiture has fallen off the tightrope long ago.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      The money is proven to be of illegal evidence, in a civil lawsuit. It is the same standard by which I can sue you for everything that you’re worth: preponderance of the evidence. It’s a lower standard than criminal court.
      - ng12 9y ago
        I don't think that's true. There was no lawsuit for the civil seizure incidents I've read about, including the one described in the article. Hypothetically, even if that were true, does that not sound crazy to you? That the government would launch a civil suit against you for the crime of possessing money? Edit: Just read that you're in law school. You truly terrify me.
        dang 9y ago
        Personal attacks will get your account banned. Please don't do this again. Edit: It looks, unfortunately, like you have made a habit of skimping on civility in your comments on HN. That is not the kind of site we want, so please up your game if you want to keep posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- itronitron 9y ago
  Civil liberties and effective law enforcement are not competing interests. Many laws exist to protect civil liberties and therefore an essential aspect of law enforcement is to protect civil liberties.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I agree that it’s important to keep in mind the balance between civil liberties and effective law enforcement. Civil liberties are not opposed to effective law enforcement; enforced guarantees of civil liberties are a key means by which law enforcement is made to actually enforce the law effectively by doing the work to identify actual wrongdoers and hold them accountable rather than presenting the illusion of effectiveness by setting up easy scapegoats and/or using “law enforcement” as a pretext for implementing the personal interests of the law enforcers.