4 ms·
>The 21 defendants are charged in two separate indictments that were unsealed today in the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of Oklahoma
by beardog 4y ago
>The 21 defendants are charged in two separate indictments that were unsealed today in the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of Oklahoma following extensive law enforcement arrest and search operations. In addition to the indictments, over 32 search warrants were executed, and law enforcement seized millions of dollars in assets, including homes, bank accounts, cash, and luxury vehicles.
I obviously don't have any sympathy for these likely criminals, but unless i misunderstand it sounds like people lost their homes (civil asset forfeiture) before being convicted of a crime which I'm not sure is something to brag about.
- genmud 4y agoI think that if you paid for your home with criminal activity you should forfeit that to repay the victims of your crimes. If your legal and illegal stuff is together, tough shit.
- DJBunnies 4y agoCivil forfeiture is lawless.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y agoCivil forfeiture is a euphemism for theft by authorities.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Civil forfeiture is lawless. Civil forfeiture may be unjust, but it is definitely a product of, and tightly governed by, law. It is also irrelevant to this case, in which criminal, not civil, forfeiture is sought.
- laverya 4y agoRight, but they should have to prove that the home was paid for with crime, and not the other way around.
- notriddle 4y agoThat seems like an impossible standard. What happens if the criminal took a job that payed less because of their criminal activity, put the legal paychecks into house payments, and the illegal money into food and other consumables?
- barsonme 4y agoBecause of Blackstone’s ratio.
- from 4y agoWelcome to the debate on pretrial freezing of untainted assets. Some justices agreed with your point given the fungibility of money and all but the majority disagreed in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_v._United_States. The houses that were seized were probably not their primary residences and may be returned if they win at trial (they probably won’t given that they have nearly every major player in the indictment on tape acknowledging that they have received stolen property).
- dragonwriter 4y agoAnd since the forfeiture sought here is criminal forfeiture, they will have to prove that.
- jupp0r 4y agoNobody has been convicted of criminal activity yet, that's for a court to decide.
- 20after4 4y agoThe money won't go to repay any victims.
- googlryas 4y agoI see your point, but imagine a situation where I robbed bank for a million dollars. Should I be able to use that million to pay a really good lawyer to defend me in court? And then after I'm feeling guilty I just throw my hands up and say "well I don't have that million anymore, good luck collecting it from me while I'm in jail." At the very least, I believe the assets would be returned to them if it turns out they are found not guilty. So they are seized but not gone for good.
- genmud 4y agoAt the federal level, that’s typically what is done.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- colanderman 4y agoI wonder if they limited the seizure to second homes, or basically just kicked the alleged criminals' families onto the street.
- dragonwriter 4y agoNope, they are seized as evidence and are also subject to a claim for criminal asset forfeiture contingent on conviction; the criminal forfeiture claims are part of each indictment.