5 ms·

If they can find it, the government will seize it, don't worry. They even double dip: they seize both the stolen goods and the money paid for them, using the fo

by ovi256 7y ago

If they can find it, the government will seize it, don't worry. They even double dip: they seize both the stolen goods and the money paid for them, using the forfeiture doctrine unique to the US. Then, the payer has to prove he was buying in good faith (which will be a steep hill to climb, given the usual conspiracy between buyer and seller of stolen goods) in a separate lawsuit against the government if he wants the money back.

candiodari 7y ago
The worst of it is that money forfeited is NOT returned to the person it was stolen from. This is one of those things that is so obvious everyone thinks that this is what happens but in fact does not happen in many cases. The police may themselves sell the recovered stolen goods instead of returning them. You don't have any recourse. So the only thing you can achieve by reporting a theft is that someone gets subjected to the US justice system (assuming they do anything at all). It is highly unlikely you get anything back. So you shouldn't do it to recover your goods. Furthermore, reporting anything to the police has extra consequences: 1) they will investigate, and may find something wrong with you 2) they may report it to other government organizations which may use it in ways you did not anticipate and really don't want (e.g. child services: your house was broken into and is "not livable") 3) just the association, or that the neighborhood sees police officers near/in your house will spread and may have consequences. There's nothing to gain from using the justice system and everything to lose.
- ovi256 7y ago
  While these things happen, it's an overly negative view. A citizen reporting a theft has a very low probability of a negative outcome from his interaction with the police. >nothing to gain from using the justice system Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims.
  - _jal 7y ago
    > Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims Yes, that's the reason to report. Another reason not to, if you don't have insurance: creepy cops being creepy at you. Story time: Walking home with my then-housemate after dinner that involved drinking, we were mugged. Minor violence, lost our wallets. I called the cops. They wanted to come the next day to do an interview, which I declined, pointing out they weren't going to try to find the wallets, so what's the point? At which point cop starts getting weird, first saying they need their statistics for better funding. I still decline, and he says "Well, we'll send someone anyway" and hangs up. Sure enough, a cop shows up the next day. I tell him I don't need his services and he starts pressuring me for a report. At this point, I'm pissed and tell him to leave; he makes vague noises about maybe not responding to this block very quickly in the future; I barely manage not to say something really rude that most likely would have escalated things. My policy now: if I'll probably die anyway, or if it involves enough money that I can't ignore it, I might call the cops. Otherwise I'll take my chances that inviting more shitty people to a shitshow will just turn it worse. FTP.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      What people don't understand is that when you call the police, you have no control over the situation anymore, the police do. If you can reasonable keep control (and that could be a simply having the ability to walk away) then do that instead of calling the police. Once you call them, you're trusting that they won't turn on you, or take issue with you.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  That sounds incredibly broken and seems to remove all incentives from reporting theft. Given that a working justice system is what seperates capitalism from anarchy, how is this allowed to happen in America?
  - Sag0Sag0 7y ago
    The fact that people like the idea of revenge and getting back at their attackers? The fact that corruption is rarely a serious problem as long as a justice system functions relatively ok? Because some parts of America are chaotic hellholes?
  - chii 7y ago
    the police was never about protecting the citizens. Its is about policing the citizens. The thieves are made an example of, to discourage general petty crimes. Big flashy crimes are sometimes worked on to make a show of force, and to keep up appearances. Individuals will not get any protection from the police. Therefore, take your own protection into your own hands. Alarms, and strong doors and windows, good locks. Don't store too much valuables, and keep a security camera visible to deter would-be thieves. If you can, fire-arms are also needed. I know many here are against guns, but i do believe they have uses, and self-protection is one of them.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    I don’t know if you’ve recently taken a look at what else is allowed to happen in America, but I think this is perfectly in line with the other insanity. It’s interesting, since in daily life it seems almost normal.
- WoahNoun 7y ago
  You are conflating two different things. Asset forfeiture for assets used in a crime and asset seizure of stolen assets. The former the government generally keeps as it has no rightful owner (eg a car purchased with drug proceeds) while the latter is dispersed among aggrieved parties as equitably as possible based on the amount recovered (Bernie Madoff; Mt Gox; David Brooks; etc).
  - candiodari 7y ago
    Except of course that if a car is purchased with drug proceeds the government will keep the car AND get the money back from the vendor if they can. So if they actually manage to do that (obviously people don't generally commit crimes because they're swimming in money), then no, this is wrong information.
    - WoahNoun 7y ago
      You have a source on the government going after a car dealership for funds from selling a car that was seized?
  - ovi256 7y ago
    > conflating two different things ... asset seizure of stolen assets Yeah, seems like I was, in the general case of stolen assets, sorry. My example applies to the more limited case of sale of stolen assets to a buyer, where there's enough conspiracy between seller and buyer, and the buyer is an unpleasant career fence. It happens often enough: there's a specialized network of fences (dealers in stolen goods). Given the efforts the parties make to keep their operation covert, conspiracy is easy for the government to allege. And the civil forfeiture against the money used to buy the goods proceeds without a hitch. Yet the fence is not indicted.It happens at scale, you can be sure that false positives (honest citizens who happen to look bad) get burned too.
antihero 7y ago
What if it is in a crypto wallet?
- moftz 7y ago
  They can seize that too and then auction it off later. The FBI seized the SilkRoad's escrow account, 26k BTC.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Isn’t that all owned by people? How are they allowed to just take that (and likely from non-us residents as well)?
    - _jal 7y ago
      The relevant question is, who is going to stop them?
      - chrshawkes 7y ago
        Just ask Kim DotCom about that. I mean, he sorta won extradition but the FBI did their best to ruin his life and we're pretty successful at that.
        vunie 7y ago
        This is what it always boils down to. Right and wrong is irrelevant. Those with the biggest guns win.
    - unilynx 7y ago
      ... and those people are free to sue the Silk Road guy for the money they lost.
    - moftz 7y ago
      If you can prove your money is in there and can also prove that the money wasn't proceeds of a crime (selling illegal drugs, firearms, etc) then it's yours. I'm guessing very few people really wanted to tell the FBI who they were and what they were selling/buying on there.

by ovi256 7y ago

candiodari 7y ago

The worst of it is that money forfeited is NOT returned to the person it was stolen from. This is one of those things that is so obvious everyone thinks that this is what happens but in fact does not happen in many cases. The police may themselves sell the recovered stolen goods instead of returning them. You don't have any recourse. So the only thing you can achieve by reporting a theft is that someone gets subjected to the US justice system (assuming they do anything at all). It is highly unlikely you get anything back. So you shouldn't do it to recover your goods. Furthermore, reporting anything to the police has extra consequences: 1) they will investigate, and may find something wrong with you 2) they may report it to other government organizations which may use it in ways you did not anticipate and really don't want (e.g. child services: your house was broken into and is "not livable") 3) just the association, or that the neighborhood sees police officers near/in your house will spread and may have consequences. There's nothing to gain from using the justice system and everything to lose.

ovi256 7y ago
While these things happen, it's an overly negative view. A citizen reporting a theft has a very low probability of a negative outcome from his interaction with the police. >nothing to gain from using the justice system Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims.
- _jal 7y ago
  > Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims Yes, that's the reason to report. Another reason not to, if you don't have insurance: creepy cops being creepy at you. Story time: Walking home with my then-housemate after dinner that involved drinking, we were mugged. Minor violence, lost our wallets. I called the cops. They wanted to come the next day to do an interview, which I declined, pointing out they weren't going to try to find the wallets, so what's the point? At which point cop starts getting weird, first saying they need their statistics for better funding. I still decline, and he says "Well, we'll send someone anyway" and hangs up. Sure enough, a cop shows up the next day. I tell him I don't need his services and he starts pressuring me for a report. At this point, I'm pissed and tell him to leave; he makes vague noises about maybe not responding to this block very quickly in the future; I barely manage not to say something really rude that most likely would have escalated things. My policy now: if I'll probably die anyway, or if it involves enough money that I can't ignore it, I might call the cops. Otherwise I'll take my chances that inviting more shitty people to a shitshow will just turn it worse. FTP.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    What people don't understand is that when you call the police, you have no control over the situation anymore, the police do. If you can reasonable keep control (and that could be a simply having the ability to walk away) then do that instead of calling the police. Once you call them, you're trusting that they won't turn on you, or take issue with you.
wongarsu 7y ago
That sounds incredibly broken and seems to remove all incentives from reporting theft. Given that a working justice system is what seperates capitalism from anarchy, how is this allowed to happen in America?
- Sag0Sag0 7y ago
  The fact that people like the idea of revenge and getting back at their attackers? The fact that corruption is rarely a serious problem as long as a justice system functions relatively ok? Because some parts of America are chaotic hellholes?
- chii 7y ago
  the police was never about protecting the citizens. Its is about policing the citizens. The thieves are made an example of, to discourage general petty crimes. Big flashy crimes are sometimes worked on to make a show of force, and to keep up appearances. Individuals will not get any protection from the police. Therefore, take your own protection into your own hands. Alarms, and strong doors and windows, good locks. Don't store too much valuables, and keep a security camera visible to deter would-be thieves. If you can, fire-arms are also needed. I know many here are against guns, but i do believe they have uses, and self-protection is one of them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Aeolun 7y ago
  I don’t know if you’ve recently taken a look at what else is allowed to happen in America, but I think this is perfectly in line with the other insanity. It’s interesting, since in daily life it seems almost normal.
WoahNoun 7y ago
You are conflating two different things. Asset forfeiture for assets used in a crime and asset seizure of stolen assets. The former the government generally keeps as it has no rightful owner (eg a car purchased with drug proceeds) while the latter is dispersed among aggrieved parties as equitably as possible based on the amount recovered (Bernie Madoff; Mt Gox; David Brooks; etc).
- candiodari 7y ago
  Except of course that if a car is purchased with drug proceeds the government will keep the car AND get the money back from the vendor if they can. So if they actually manage to do that (obviously people don't generally commit crimes because they're swimming in money), then no, this is wrong information.
  - WoahNoun 7y ago
    You have a source on the government going after a car dealership for funds from selling a car that was seized?
- ovi256 7y ago
  > conflating two different things ... asset seizure of stolen assets Yeah, seems like I was, in the general case of stolen assets, sorry. My example applies to the more limited case of sale of stolen assets to a buyer, where there's enough conspiracy between seller and buyer, and the buyer is an unpleasant career fence. It happens often enough: there's a specialized network of fences (dealers in stolen goods). Given the efforts the parties make to keep their operation covert, conspiracy is easy for the government to allege. And the civil forfeiture against the money used to buy the goods proceeds without a hitch. Yet the fence is not indicted.It happens at scale, you can be sure that false positives (honest citizens who happen to look bad) get burned too.

antihero 7y ago

What if it is in a crypto wallet?

moftz 7y ago
They can seize that too and then auction it off later. The FBI seized the SilkRoad's escrow account, 26k BTC.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Isn’t that all owned by people? How are they allowed to just take that (and likely from non-us residents as well)?
  - _jal 7y ago
    The relevant question is, who is going to stop them?
    - chrshawkes 7y ago
      Just ask Kim DotCom about that. I mean, he sorta won extradition but the FBI did their best to ruin his life and we're pretty successful at that.
      - vunie 7y ago
        This is what it always boils down to. Right and wrong is irrelevant. Those with the biggest guns win.
  - unilynx 7y ago
    ... and those people are free to sue the Silk Road guy for the money they lost.
  - moftz 7y ago
    If you can prove your money is in there and can also prove that the money wasn't proceeds of a crime (selling illegal drugs, firearms, etc) then it's yours. I'm guessing very few people really wanted to tell the FBI who they were and what they were selling/buying on there.