4 ms·
Right, but they should have to prove that the home was paid for with crime, and not the other way around.
by laverya 4y ago
Right, 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.