3 ms·
Calling it civil forfeiture is in itself problematic. The assumption is that the person committed a crime and profited from it. Kinda of a weird mix. You must p
by pierrebai 3y ago
Calling it civil forfeiture is in itself problematic. The assumption is that the person committed a crime and profited from it. Kinda of a weird mix. You must prove you did not commit a crime in a civil case.
- Joker_vD 3y agoIt actually sounds unconstitutional when you put it like that... but then again, if you don't put it like that then it doesn't! Law is like an ass, isn't it, it goes in whatever direction the drover points it.
- rtkwe 3y agoThe original use case of CAF as a way to seize assets of unknown or absentee owners with clear connections to crimes makes it make more sense both legally and philosophically. IMO the big fix for civil asset forfeiture is that if there is a claimant you need to charge them with some crime to seize it and it has to go through the normal process.