4 ms·

> 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 e

by 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
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by dvt 5y ago

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

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]