5 ms·

The Fourth Amendment quite literally has the words "unlawful search and seizure". I want people to remember that whenever they're pushing the propaganda that is

by jmyeet 4y ago

The Fourth Amendment quite literally has the words "unlawful search and seizure". I want people to remember that whenever they're pushing the propaganda that is the originalist or textualist interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. That propaganda is a lie. I understand the mental gymanstics used to justify this, in that the property is the defendant in a civil action (for a suspected criminal act by its owner, no less). The end result is what we see here: civil asset forfeiture and absolutely no protection against unlawful seizure. Now a lot of people won't care about this because it's SBF and it looks pretty likely that he's guilty. At least there's a criminal indictment in this case. If the government has this power (and, again, I think they should not) this use seems appropriate. But the government doesn't require a criminal indictment at all (let alone a conviction) to use this power. Consider the case of Amy Nelson [1]. At the behest of Amazon, the Department of Justice seized the bank accounts of her, her husband, a bunch of employees of a company and even their lawyers who worked for a law firm, ultimately charging nobody with anything and returning 85% of the money 2 years later once the Nelsons agreed not to sue the government. Also, SBF gave tens of millions in donations to both parties in the recent midterms. If the Robinhood shares are fair game, why aren't the donations? [1]: https://www.geekwire.com/2022/former-seattle-entrepreneur-and-husband-will-get-back-most-of-funds-seized-by-fbi-in-amazon-case/ https://www.geekwire.com/2022/former-seattle-entrepreneur-an...

tedunangst 4y ago
> If the Robinhood shares are fair game, why aren't the donations? Because SBF allegedly owns the shares. He doesn't own the donation. Unless you want the government to seize whatever goodwill the donation got him. That would be a fun sheriff's sale. "One lunch with selected congressman, to discuss voting in up to two bills."
- graeme 4y ago
  Actually the donations may well be clawed back in the bankruptcy proceedings, depending how recent they are.
graeme 4y ago
The article is a little unclear but it appears the assets are being seized because there is a reasonable claim they’re part of the bankruptcy estate of FTX, which isn’t directly related to SBF’s trial.
crazygringo 4y ago
I think you're missing the "unlawful" part. Because this is all totally lawful, according to bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy proceedings are all about identify all assets and loans, and figuring out how to recover them maximally in order to distribute whatever's left of them to creditors and owners. This isn't some arbitrary seizure. Obviously an owner can't be allowed to start drawing gigantic loans from a company they control, declare bankruptcy, and think they get to keep the loan money or what they've bought with it. (Same thing as how, in a criminal case, a thief can't sell a stolen painting for $10M cash, and then expect to be able to use that cash to fund their defense.) Bankruptcy court rightly has the power to claw back fraudulent transactions such as these. I'm not saying the government never abuses search and seizure, but in the specific case of bankruptcy, retrieving assets is the whole first half of bankruptcy (with their reallocation being the second). So bankruptcy is basically the worst example you could use for trying to claim abuse of search and seizure.
- bmitc 4y ago
  I am also curious what is considered to be unlawful about this. This person has been charged with financial fraud, amongst other things. It makes perfect sense why financial assets would be seized. And from some other comments pointing this out, this seems to be related to the bankruptcy of FTX and a claim to the funds by FTX.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
The SEC is literally announcing they're pursuing the legal process, not doing an unlawful search and seizure.
kens 4y ago
> The Fourth Amendment quite literally has the words "unlawful search and seizure". It literally does not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
noyoudumbdolt 4y ago
>civil asset forfeiture and absolutely no protection against unlawful seizure. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even putting the specifics here aside, that's not how civil asset forfeiture works. If the government seizes your assets, you can force them to go to court, where they have to establish to a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property was the proceeds of illegal activity. That's the same standard that anyone seeking to sue you and take your money has to meet.

by jmyeet 4y ago

tedunangst 4y ago

> If the Robinhood shares are fair game, why aren't the donations? Because SBF allegedly owns the shares. He doesn't own the donation. Unless you want the government to seize whatever goodwill the donation got him. That would be a fun sheriff's sale. "One lunch with selected congressman, to discuss voting in up to two bills."

graeme 4y ago
Actually the donations may well be clawed back in the bankruptcy proceedings, depending how recent they are.

graeme 4y ago

The article is a little unclear but it appears the assets are being seized because there is a reasonable claim they’re part of the bankruptcy estate of FTX, which isn’t directly related to SBF’s trial.

crazygringo 4y ago

I think you're missing the "unlawful" part. Because this is all totally lawful, according to bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy proceedings are all about identify all assets and loans, and figuring out how to recover them maximally in order to distribute whatever's left of them to creditors and owners. This isn't some arbitrary seizure. Obviously an owner can't be allowed to start drawing gigantic loans from a company they control, declare bankruptcy, and think they get to keep the loan money or what they've bought with it. (Same thing as how, in a criminal case, a thief can't sell a stolen painting for $10M cash, and then expect to be able to use that cash to fund their defense.) Bankruptcy court rightly has the power to claw back fraudulent transactions such as these. I'm not saying the government never abuses search and seizure, but in the specific case of bankruptcy, retrieving assets is the whole first half of bankruptcy (with their reallocation being the second). So bankruptcy is basically the worst example you could use for trying to claim abuse of search and seizure.

bmitc 4y ago
I am also curious what is considered to be unlawful about this. This person has been charged with financial fraud, amongst other things. It makes perfect sense why financial assets would be seized. And from some other comments pointing this out, this seems to be related to the bankruptcy of FTX and a claim to the funds by FTX.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

The SEC is literally announcing they're pursuing the legal process, not doing an unlawful search and seizure.

kens 4y ago

> The Fourth Amendment quite literally has the words "unlawful search and seizure". It literally does not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

noyoudumbdolt 4y ago

>civil asset forfeiture and absolutely no protection against unlawful seizure. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even putting the specifics here aside, that's not how civil asset forfeiture works. If the government seizes your assets, you can force them to go to court, where they have to establish to a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property was the proceeds of illegal activity. That's the same standard that anyone seeking to sue you and take your money has to meet.