5 ms·
I'm all for the legal process and there is a legitimate way to seize assets. But asset forfeiture is not that. It's only enabled because it is trivial and is do
by bko 5y ago
I'm all for the legal process and there is a legitimate way to seize assets. But asset forfeiture is not that. It's only enabled because it is trivial and is done outside of the normal legal process. It doesn't help that the beneficiaries are the very people that can initiate the forfeiture.
If someone goes through the legal process and is found to be guilty and their assets are seized that's fine. But if someone is pulled over, found to have some drugs, gets their car and cash on them possessed and is forced to go through a lengthy process that free up that money, then that's different.
- woodruffw 5y agoI don't think we're in disagreement? In any case: the really egregious examples of civil asset forfeiture are the petty ones: the government stops someone for the crime of DWB[1], and seizes all of the property they have on their person (including, sometimes, the car itself.) It's a disgusting crime, but one that doesn't typically extend to the victim's bank accounts or other financial resources, unless there's a larger case being pursued against them. And so, once again, it's not clear how cryptocurrency improves the state of affairs: either you're carrying a hot wallet around with you for your day-to-day expenses (in which case you're subject to the same seizure), or it's roughly equivalent to a traditional financial produce and isn't subject to a spurious seizure (but might be subject to a larger one). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black