3 ms·

> The devil’s advocate take on this outcome would be that the person cooperated with the FBI to provide evidence and/or testify against bigger fish in the case

> The devil’s advocate take on this outcome would be that the person cooperated with the FBI to provide evidence and/or testify against bigger fish in the case in exchange for being let off the hook. If this was the case, we’d probably see some headlines about an Amazon-related criminal charges in the coming months or years. Although in our case the released documents were full of “Company 1” and “Individual 2” anonymity, so someone (usually a journalist) would have to figure out the connection. I find even that devil's take to be problematic, because that sounds a lot like coerced testimony. It calls into question both the morality of doing so, and the authenticity of any testimony produced. It almost begs for comparisons to the mafia. There's not a huge gap between "testify against this person or we'll seize your home and business" and "don't testify against this person or we'll burn your home and business down". Other than that the government makes the rules, and they've decided it's okay when they do it.

drran 5y ago
... 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» and 2) «don't testify against this person, which did the crime, or we will do a crime against you». Unless you or/and accuser are criminals, the gap is huge. :-/
- everforward 5y ago
  I think you have more faith in the government than I do. Just breaking that down: > 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» This is really "testify against this person, who we say did the crime, or the state will seize your goods without charging you with a crime". Civil forfeiture doesn't require any kind of conviction against you, because they're technically charging your property. > Unless you or/and accuser are criminals, the gap is huge. :-/ Civil forfeiture doesn't require anyone to be a criminal; innocent people have their stuff seized all the time. Also, it's incredibly easy to find something you can charge someone with to get them to cooperate. You ever not paid taxes on something you ordered on the internet? That's tax fraud, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Ever gone more than 15 over the speed limit? That's a crime in many states, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Even if you know you're innocent of what they want to charge you with, your options are to either cooperate, or spend the next year or two in jail fighting your case while you spend tens or hundreds of thousands on lawyers. Also, whether someone is a criminal or not is rather arbitrary when the state gets involved, because the state defines what a crime is, and thus who the criminals are. E.g. if I tried to compel someone to testify by threatening to steal their car, that makes me a criminal. If the state does it, it's not, because they've written the rules that way.

drran 5y ago

... 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» and 2) «don't testify against this person, which did the crime, or we will do a crime against you». Unless you or/and accuser are criminals, the gap is huge. :-/

everforward 5y ago
I think you have more faith in the government than I do. Just breaking that down: > 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» This is really "testify against this person, who we say did the crime, or the state will seize your goods without charging you with a crime". Civil forfeiture doesn't require any kind of conviction against you, because they're technically charging your property. > Unless you or/and accuser are criminals, the gap is huge. :-/ Civil forfeiture doesn't require anyone to be a criminal; innocent people have their stuff seized all the time. Also, it's incredibly easy to find something you can charge someone with to get them to cooperate. You ever not paid taxes on something you ordered on the internet? That's tax fraud, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Ever gone more than 15 over the speed limit? That's a crime in many states, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Even if you know you're innocent of what they want to charge you with, your options are to either cooperate, or spend the next year or two in jail fighting your case while you spend tens or hundreds of thousands on lawyers. Also, whether someone is a criminal or not is rather arbitrary when the state gets involved, because the state defines what a crime is, and thus who the criminals are. E.g. if I tried to compel someone to testify by threatening to steal their car, that makes me a criminal. If the state does it, it's not, because they've written the rules that way.