3 ms·

"They weren't charged with any crimes" and yet... "The Zhangs did lose their cash, though, for good: A judge ordered it forfeited to the provincial government a

"They weren't charged with any crimes" and yet... "The Zhangs did lose their cash, though, for good: A judge ordered it forfeited to the provincial government as "proceeds of crime." The government should not be allowed to just declare the money was obtained illegally and seize it without due process, never to be returned. That's the Canadian equivalent of civil asset forfeiture. I don't know Canadian law, but it seems they are falling into the same morality pit that the US has been engaging in. Yes, I realize that these people are guilty. But this kind of thing is what leads to this: https://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/ https://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civi...

privacypoller 9y ago
There is one big difference - Canada does not have the same heavy-handed legal punishment system that the US does. Possession for distribution doesn't run the same risks for (essentially permanent) jail time like it does in the US, but costs as much or more to the legal system. I don't agree with the civil forfeiture policies but I can certainly see how & why they are developing here. It's an attempt to remove the profit motive of crime without adding to the already clogged and expensive legal system. Again, I'm not judging the "rightness", just understanding the logic behind it.
- turc1656 9y ago
  Yeah, I understand the logic as well. In the US it was designed to put a major dent into organized crime by seizing what amounts to their working capital. The problem, though, is that it's the easy way out and due process was specifically designed to keep government from overreaching in exactly the manner which they are doing. They are simply circumventing due process by separating property from its owner. The huge amount of law has to do specifically with property rights and torts against it. People (in the US) supposedly have a 4th amendment right to help protect their property. I'm sure Canada has a similar law. But now, they are separating property from the person who owns, removing the 4th amendment protections. How the SCOTUS hasn't struck this down with extreme prejudice boggles my mind.

privacypoller 9y ago

There is one big difference - Canada does not have the same heavy-handed legal punishment system that the US does. Possession for distribution doesn't run the same risks for (essentially permanent) jail time like it does in the US, but costs as much or more to the legal system. I don't agree with the civil forfeiture policies but I can certainly see how & why they are developing here. It's an attempt to remove the profit motive of crime without adding to the already clogged and expensive legal system. Again, I'm not judging the "rightness", just understanding the logic behind it.

turc1656 9y ago
Yeah, I understand the logic as well. In the US it was designed to put a major dent into organized crime by seizing what amounts to their working capital. The problem, though, is that it's the easy way out and due process was specifically designed to keep government from overreaching in exactly the manner which they are doing. They are simply circumventing due process by separating property from its owner. The huge amount of law has to do specifically with property rights and torts against it. People (in the US) supposedly have a 4th amendment right to help protect their property. I'm sure Canada has a similar law. But now, they are separating property from the person who owns, removing the 4th amendment protections. How the SCOTUS hasn't struck this down with extreme prejudice boggles my mind.