3 ms·

> incorrectly accused a safe deposit company of being a criminal enterprise (case was later dropped, nobody convicted, no real evidence). That's not quite corr

by abeyer 4y ago

> incorrectly accused a safe deposit company of being a criminal enterprise (case was later dropped, nobody convicted, no real evidence). That's not quite correct, I think: the company itself plead guilty to the money laundering part and was fined... but it was also unable to pay the fine, and the government chose not to go after the owners/officers personally. So the individual charges were dropped, but not against the company. That seems like even more of an indication that this was primarily/just a fundraising via forfeiture expedition. Civil forfeiture laws need to be changed to require a criminal conviction first, and to impose mandatory multipliers of damages on the government when a forfeiture is found improper, or there is no motivation for law enforcement to stop padding their own budgets this way.

ALittleLight 4y ago
The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? You've got enough evidence to seize their money, just not enough to prove they committed a crime in court. The company, which has already gone out of business, pleads guilty giving up their right to appeal, which wouldn't help them because they are already out of business, and agrees to a fine, which they can't pay anyway. I think it's much more likely the company plead out to get the legal case over with. That nobody was convicted of a crime over this is why I wrote the FBI incorrectly accused the company. If the FBI was right, and these were money launderers - where are the criminal charges? The FBI and US attorneys are well and widely known for over charging and coercing people to take pleas - so the guilty plea with no consequences doesn't really carry any weight. What's the evidence?
- abeyer 4y ago
  > The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? Ethically, morally, by common sense? Sure, weird. But it's also civil forfeiture law as it currently exists basically working "as intended." The whole goal is to end-run the criminal court and move things into civil court where they have a lower burden of proof and the accused have to pay for their own defense (or technically that of their property.)

by abeyer 4y ago

ALittleLight 4y ago

The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? You've got enough evidence to seize their money, just not enough to prove they committed a crime in court. The company, which has already gone out of business, pleads guilty giving up their right to appeal, which wouldn't help them because they are already out of business, and agrees to a fine, which they can't pay anyway. I think it's much more likely the company plead out to get the legal case over with. That nobody was convicted of a crime over this is why I wrote the FBI incorrectly accused the company. If the FBI was right, and these were money launderers - where are the criminal charges? The FBI and US attorneys are well and widely known for over charging and coercing people to take pleas - so the guilty plea with no consequences doesn't really carry any weight. What's the evidence?

abeyer 4y ago
> The article says there is no criminal case and nobody went to prison. That's weird, right? Ethically, morally, by common sense? Sure, weird. But it's also civil forfeiture law as it currently exists basically working "as intended." The whole goal is to end-run the criminal court and move things into civil court where they have a lower burden of proof and the accused have to pay for their own defense (or technically that of their property.)