5 ms·

The suggestion that ill-gotten items must have been stolen is just flat-out wrong and illustrative of your typical modern-day "reddit lawyers." For example, one

by dvt 5y ago

The suggestion that ill-gotten items must have been stolen is just flat-out wrong and illustrative of your typical modern-day "reddit lawyers." For example, one could buy lawn mowers with drug money (to resell them). Those lawn mowers weren't stolen, but they would still qualify for civil forfeiture. Not saying civil forfeiture has no problems, but it's a complex mechanism that people don't quite grasp (much like any other hot-button social issue).

twirlock 5y ago
It's actually not complex at all.
yunohn 5y ago
I’m pretty sure you’ve misunderstood. The implication here is that the FBI has “stolen” more assets than burglars have.
- tomerv 5y ago
  Yes, but the comparison is useless. Presumably, at least some of that civil forfeiture is "legitimate", i.e. illegal gains. So what are you actually comparing here?
  - yunohn 5y ago
    I was correcting the commenter; not judging the value of the comparison - as weird as it is that civil forfeiture is more rampant than burglary.
- joshAg 5y ago
  They're saying that the total amount of stolen good isn't an upper bound on things that could be legitimately forfeited, because there's other ways to colors goods enough that they become subject to forfeiture. But that wasn't my argument or point. Like how you put it, it's that the scope of forfeitures is bigger than stolen goods. The comparison is only useful to help give a size of the problem. The critique is in 2 parts: 1, at least a significant portion of civil forfeitures are illegitimate, if not most of them and 2 this isn't a small problem but instead on the same order as stolen property.
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  Some amount of assets listed as stolen by burglars is insurance fraud. Does that matter? Not really, because it's a small percentage that doesn't change the fact that most of it is crime. Civil forfeiture doesn't require the government to convict anyone, or even arrest them, for that matter. The vast majority of the money that comes from this process comes from people we're supposed to assume innocent, since they haven't been proven guilty. Due to that, we have to assume that all of the money that comes from this process without convictions is stolen from innocent people. If the government wants to seize the assets of people it convicts, that's one thing, but taking money from people and making them pay to prove it wasn't related to crime is absolutely theft.
jjoonathan 5y ago
Is there anything in this pile of complexity that might turn around my impression that civil forfeiture exists in flagrant disregard for the American values expressed in the 4th and 5th Amendments? Or is this argument the intellectual equivalent of when my kid says "You doooon't understaaaaaaaand!"
- dvt 5y ago
  > Is there anything in this pile of complexity that might turn around my impression that civil forfeiture exists in flagrant disregard for the American values expressed in the 4th and 5th Amendments? I mean, there's clearly a need for something akin to "civil forfeiture" -- what if Bob steals your car and sells it to Alice? The cops have to literally take it back; that's civil forfeiture, as Alice might not be criminally liable, but the car was still stolen and belongs to you. Law enforcement, of course, might abuse it (as it often abuses just about every other power it gets). So there's need for oversight, but civil forfeiture is very obviously needed for remedying some harms.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Those are not equivalent at all! Legally, Alice does not own the vehicle in that scenario, and most/all states are quite clear on that. Bob had no legal right to transfer the vehicle to Alice. Alice is committing a crime by possessing stolen property the moment she is aware or reasonably should be aware it is stolen. The police do not seize it at all, and do not use Civil Asset Forfeiture to return it to it’s owner either. Bob committed a crime of fraud and selling stolen property against Alice in your scenario, as well as the crime of grand theft auto (assuming the vehicle is worth much) against the owner. Alice would be committing the crime of possession of stolen property if she kept the vehicle after learning or if she reasonably should have known it was stolen. The police, assuming they find the vehicle impound it and/or notify the owner to come pick it up. Also, the owner is responsible in most states for the vehicle until a legal transfer has occurred, meaning they are on the hook for impound fees, towing fees, parking tickets, etc. in most states. Civil Asset Forfeiture is when property is charged with the crime of being an ill gotten gain/related to a crime. It is then ‘held’ or seized like a criminal, except not being a person, it cannot defend itself, and has no rights. It is a rather bizarre legal fiction. It forces the owner to go to court to ‘bail it out’ or defend it against the charges, which is difficult for many people to do, and most criminals wouldn’t even try. How would you show that your Yacht was paid for from legitimate proceeds beyond a reasonable doubt for instance, unless you kept detailed proceeds and an army of accountants to trace the funds? Most criminals (and many regular folks), don’t keep the records to do that anyway. It is used when, say, the police can’t prove someone committed a crime, but they are wealthy and have assets, and even if they can’t prove they committed a crime, they know it will be almost impossible to prove it WASN’T from money earned from crime! So easy payday
rootusrootus 5y ago
The very idea is abhorrent to me, that we need civil forfeiture because the criminal justice system is inadequate to the task. If we can't take away ill-gotten gains in a court of law (and not by shenanigans like filing lawsuits against cash), then we're effectively stealing it.
- lazide 5y ago
  It is effectively theft. Since it is being done to ‘bad people’, as long as it keeps the fig leaf of due process on however it generally gets a pass - both at the voting booth and in the courts, same as FISA, rendition, and similar overreach. This isn’t THAT new - very real government documents that leaked decades ago on COINTELPRO and MKULTRA should hopefully disabuse anyone of the notion that the gov’t doesn’t do pretty abusive things at times to it’s own people. Pushing back, downsizing gov’t so they do have the budget for large scale shenanigans are important. Unfortunately not the direction it has been moving for some time however, or is likely to go anytime soon.
hermitdev 5y ago
The problem is the unsubstantiated claim that all of the items seized were ill-gotten, not even that "ill-gotten items must have been stolen". If all it takes is one bad apple with a safe-deposit box to taint all of the boxes, regardless of owner, this is by definition guilt by (loose) association. I have zero problem with FBI, or whatever police, seizing a specific deposit box for which they have a valid warrant. But, I have tons of problems with this. It's a huge unwarranted governmental overreach, depriving people of their property without due process. That "they" have done a procedural end around by calling it "civil" instead of "criminal" and somehow gotten the courts to go along with it so far is abhorrent. The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." No where does the 4th amendment proscribe an exemption for civil asset forfeiture. CAF may be a complex mechanism, but the prohibition of such acts is not. It's almost like the foundering fathers saw this behavior from a different tyrannical government before...
nullc 5y ago
> your typical modern-day "reddit lawyers." Somewhat a tangent to your point, but your point may be more spot on than you imagined: r/legaladvice is moderated almost exclusively by police. They routinely give factually incorrect and personally detrimental "cop folk law", and regularly ban actual attorneys giving reasonable, citation supported, general advice.

by dvt 5y ago

twirlock 5y ago

It's actually not complex at all.

yunohn 5y ago

I’m pretty sure you’ve misunderstood. The implication here is that the FBI has “stolen” more assets than burglars have.

tomerv 5y ago
Yes, but the comparison is useless. Presumably, at least some of that civil forfeiture is "legitimate", i.e. illegal gains. So what are you actually comparing here?
- yunohn 5y ago
  I was correcting the commenter; not judging the value of the comparison - as weird as it is that civil forfeiture is more rampant than burglary.
joshAg 5y ago
They're saying that the total amount of stolen good isn't an upper bound on things that could be legitimately forfeited, because there's other ways to colors goods enough that they become subject to forfeiture. But that wasn't my argument or point. Like how you put it, it's that the scope of forfeitures is bigger than stolen goods. The comparison is only useful to help give a size of the problem. The critique is in 2 parts: 1, at least a significant portion of civil forfeitures are illegitimate, if not most of them and 2 this isn't a small problem but instead on the same order as stolen property.
ryan_lane 5y ago
Some amount of assets listed as stolen by burglars is insurance fraud. Does that matter? Not really, because it's a small percentage that doesn't change the fact that most of it is crime. Civil forfeiture doesn't require the government to convict anyone, or even arrest them, for that matter. The vast majority of the money that comes from this process comes from people we're supposed to assume innocent, since they haven't been proven guilty. Due to that, we have to assume that all of the money that comes from this process without convictions is stolen from innocent people. If the government wants to seize the assets of people it convicts, that's one thing, but taking money from people and making them pay to prove it wasn't related to crime is absolutely theft.

jjoonathan 5y ago

Is there anything in this pile of complexity that might turn around my impression that civil forfeiture exists in flagrant disregard for the American values expressed in the 4th and 5th Amendments? Or is this argument the intellectual equivalent of when my kid says "You doooon't understaaaaaaaand!"

dvt 5y ago
> Is there anything in this pile of complexity that might turn around my impression that civil forfeiture exists in flagrant disregard for the American values expressed in the 4th and 5th Amendments? I mean, there's clearly a need for something akin to "civil forfeiture" -- what if Bob steals your car and sells it to Alice? The cops have to literally take it back; that's civil forfeiture, as Alice might not be criminally liable, but the car was still stolen and belongs to you. Law enforcement, of course, might abuse it (as it often abuses just about every other power it gets). So there's need for oversight, but civil forfeiture is very obviously needed for remedying some harms.
- lazide 5y ago
  Those are not equivalent at all! Legally, Alice does not own the vehicle in that scenario, and most/all states are quite clear on that. Bob had no legal right to transfer the vehicle to Alice. Alice is committing a crime by possessing stolen property the moment she is aware or reasonably should be aware it is stolen. The police do not seize it at all, and do not use Civil Asset Forfeiture to return it to it’s owner either. Bob committed a crime of fraud and selling stolen property against Alice in your scenario, as well as the crime of grand theft auto (assuming the vehicle is worth much) against the owner. Alice would be committing the crime of possession of stolen property if she kept the vehicle after learning or if she reasonably should have known it was stolen. The police, assuming they find the vehicle impound it and/or notify the owner to come pick it up. Also, the owner is responsible in most states for the vehicle until a legal transfer has occurred, meaning they are on the hook for impound fees, towing fees, parking tickets, etc. in most states. Civil Asset Forfeiture is when property is charged with the crime of being an ill gotten gain/related to a crime. It is then ‘held’ or seized like a criminal, except not being a person, it cannot defend itself, and has no rights. It is a rather bizarre legal fiction. It forces the owner to go to court to ‘bail it out’ or defend it against the charges, which is difficult for many people to do, and most criminals wouldn’t even try. How would you show that your Yacht was paid for from legitimate proceeds beyond a reasonable doubt for instance, unless you kept detailed proceeds and an army of accountants to trace the funds? Most criminals (and many regular folks), don’t keep the records to do that anyway. It is used when, say, the police can’t prove someone committed a crime, but they are wealthy and have assets, and even if they can’t prove they committed a crime, they know it will be almost impossible to prove it WASN’T from money earned from crime! So easy payday

rootusrootus 5y ago

The very idea is abhorrent to me, that we need civil forfeiture because the criminal justice system is inadequate to the task. If we can't take away ill-gotten gains in a court of law (and not by shenanigans like filing lawsuits against cash), then we're effectively stealing it.

lazide 5y ago
It is effectively theft. Since it is being done to ‘bad people’, as long as it keeps the fig leaf of due process on however it generally gets a pass - both at the voting booth and in the courts, same as FISA, rendition, and similar overreach. This isn’t THAT new - very real government documents that leaked decades ago on COINTELPRO and MKULTRA should hopefully disabuse anyone of the notion that the gov’t doesn’t do pretty abusive things at times to it’s own people. Pushing back, downsizing gov’t so they do have the budget for large scale shenanigans are important. Unfortunately not the direction it has been moving for some time however, or is likely to go anytime soon.

hermitdev 5y ago

The problem is the unsubstantiated claim that all of the items seized were ill-gotten, not even that "ill-gotten items must have been stolen". If all it takes is one bad apple with a safe-deposit box to taint all of the boxes, regardless of owner, this is by definition guilt by (loose) association. I have zero problem with FBI, or whatever police, seizing a specific deposit box for which they have a valid warrant. But, I have tons of problems with this. It's a huge unwarranted governmental overreach, depriving people of their property without due process. That "they" have done a procedural end around by calling it "civil" instead of "criminal" and somehow gotten the courts to go along with it so far is abhorrent. The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." No where does the 4th amendment proscribe an exemption for civil asset forfeiture. CAF may be a complex mechanism, but the prohibition of such acts is not. It's almost like the foundering fathers saw this behavior from a different tyrannical government before...

nullc 5y ago

> your typical modern-day "reddit lawyers." Somewhat a tangent to your point, but your point may be more spot on than you imagined: r/legaladvice is moderated almost exclusively by police. They routinely give factually incorrect and personally detrimental "cop folk law", and regularly ban actual attorneys giving reasonable, citation supported, general advice.