5 ms·

It's not illegal in the U.S. to hide your assets or to hold cryptocurrency, and I'm sure a prosecutor would try, but possessing cryptocurrency is hardly evidenc

It's not illegal in the U.S. to hide your assets or to hold cryptocurrency, and I'm sure a prosecutor would try, but possessing cryptocurrency is hardly evidence of crime. I definitely agree with your second point though, it would be a much better solution to criminalize civil asset seizure, but that is a much harder thing to achieve in the short term.

woodruffw 5y ago
It is not separately illegal to hide your assets in the US, except where doing so involves committing other crimes (such as not paying your taxes.) However, hiding your assets is functionally illegal in the circumstances that are interesting during civil asset forfeiture: civil cases have discovery available to them, and the standard for compelled information during civil discovery is extremely low (the prosecution only needs to show that the information might reasonably lead to admissible evidence). Hiding your assets during discovery means perjuring yourself.
- gruez 5y ago
  >However, hiding your assets is functionally illegal in the circumstances that are interesting during civil asset forfeiture: civil cases have discovery available to them [...] Hiding your assets during discovery means perjuring yourself. 1. IANAL, but can't you plead the fifth on that? 2. I agree that cryptocurrency isn't a silver bullet against government action, but it still seems like an improvement to the status quo, where they can seize your stuff whenever they want and you have to sue them to get it back. With crypto, the most they can do is figure out how much money you have, but they can't seize anything without going through the courts. That in itself basically solves the civil forfeiture problem.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > IANAL, but can't you plead the fifth on that? I think it varies by state. The 5th amendment explicitly concerns criminal matters and not civil ones, so each state has a patchwork of laws and jurisprudence determining whether you can plead (and what the consequences are) during civil discovery. During a quick search, it looks like many states allow adverse inference when pleading 5A in civil cases.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Seriously? That sort of defeats the entire point of the 5th amendment. At best, it should perhaps signal an investigation may be called for, but I'd argue that civil asset forfeiture is misqualified as a civil case if that is the case, as the admission of adverse inference against a plaintiff in a civil case would further tilt the scales of justice in favor of the government, which if we're really being honest here, does not need the help.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > That sort of defeats the entire point of the 5th amendment. Not really -- civil matters aren't matters of crime (it's not illegal to divorce your spouse), so it makes sense on the surface that protections against self incrimination don't apply. The problem here is civil asset forfeiture itself, which should be either completely illegal or at the very least subject to a higher standard of proof than it currently is.
- salawat 5y ago
  Pity that despite having manuals on parallel construction, the government never seems to be held to account for acts of perjury; as in order to establish it perjured itself, it must admit to doing so, and anything that could come to light to convincingly do so is classified. The judicial system jas some serious issues when it comes to not reigning in Executive excess.

woodruffw 5y ago

It is not separately illegal to hide your assets in the US, except where doing so involves committing other crimes (such as not paying your taxes.) However, hiding your assets is functionally illegal in the circumstances that are interesting during civil asset forfeiture: civil cases have discovery available to them, and the standard for compelled information during civil discovery is extremely low (the prosecution only needs to show that the information might reasonably lead to admissible evidence). Hiding your assets during discovery means perjuring yourself.

gruez 5y ago
>However, hiding your assets is functionally illegal in the circumstances that are interesting during civil asset forfeiture: civil cases have discovery available to them [...] Hiding your assets during discovery means perjuring yourself. 1. IANAL, but can't you plead the fifth on that? 2. I agree that cryptocurrency isn't a silver bullet against government action, but it still seems like an improvement to the status quo, where they can seize your stuff whenever they want and you have to sue them to get it back. With crypto, the most they can do is figure out how much money you have, but they can't seize anything without going through the courts. That in itself basically solves the civil forfeiture problem.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > IANAL, but can't you plead the fifth on that? I think it varies by state. The 5th amendment explicitly concerns criminal matters and not civil ones, so each state has a patchwork of laws and jurisprudence determining whether you can plead (and what the consequences are) during civil discovery. During a quick search, it looks like many states allow adverse inference when pleading 5A in civil cases.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Seriously? That sort of defeats the entire point of the 5th amendment. At best, it should perhaps signal an investigation may be called for, but I'd argue that civil asset forfeiture is misqualified as a civil case if that is the case, as the admission of adverse inference against a plaintiff in a civil case would further tilt the scales of justice in favor of the government, which if we're really being honest here, does not need the help.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > That sort of defeats the entire point of the 5th amendment. Not really -- civil matters aren't matters of crime (it's not illegal to divorce your spouse), so it makes sense on the surface that protections against self incrimination don't apply. The problem here is civil asset forfeiture itself, which should be either completely illegal or at the very least subject to a higher standard of proof than it currently is.
salawat 5y ago
Pity that despite having manuals on parallel construction, the government never seems to be held to account for acts of perjury; as in order to establish it perjured itself, it must admit to doing so, and anything that could come to light to convincingly do so is classified. The judicial system jas some serious issues when it comes to not reigning in Executive excess.