5 ms·

This is not a quirk of logical thinking, but of the justice system. If you want to take that money from him, establish that the money are ill gained funds. And

This is not a quirk of logical thinking, but of the justice system. If you want to take that money from him, establish that the money are ill gained funds. And the only way to do that is to hold a trial. Not to mention that this isn't your standard criminal conspiracy either; thousands of people including many government officials happily transferred money to his company, and he probably paid taxes, too. We don't directly proceed to executing murderers in flagrante delicto either.

tptacek 15y ago
Your logic thus presumes that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to allow a bank robber to transfer the still bound packets of stolen bills to their attorney. Ok? I guess there's a reasonable case to be made there, but I don't agree with it, don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with it, and again note that it conflicts with the law of the land as established by the Supreme Court, which considered this issue directly. I think I'd have been more comfortable with a 7-0 unanimous verdict that set up a series of tests for when the government can/can't withhold assets from legal defense teams than I am with the 5-4 outcome that gives prosecutors blanket discretion to confiscate criminal proceeds. But I'd be equally uncomfortable with a 5-4 Blackmun opinion saying that the right to fund attorneys is inviolate, as that produces an incentive to double down on criminal enterprises to build warchests of legal defense funds. Generally, I want criminal conspiracies to be shut down. I think that's the reasonable-people consensus.
- revelation 15y ago
  I think the one half of the problem is: is freezing, confiscating funds considered a fine, a penalty, a sentence? In my non-lawyer opinion, I think so. The other half is: can the accused still have a fair trial without the funds? Given that there are assigned counsel, the answer to that question is 'yes'. But as a non-lawyer, I also know that for one, the outcome of a trial can very much depend on your counsel, and two, big-money counsel are better than those assigned.
- Sapient 15y ago
  But not all of the money seized was gotten illegally. In fact noone except MU knows that for sure at the moment, but what we can be sure of, is that the amount is less than 100%. In the robbed bank case, you know exactly how much was stolen and you can prove it, so seize the $100,000 - but should you seize his car and house too, before he has even been tried?
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    If the man is a career thief, then yes they should seize his car and house too. The point is that when someone is a "career criminal", everything they own is in one way or another traceable to crime. If I rob a bank and use the money to buy a Dominoes franchise, and then use the money I make off of that to buy a house. It's all ill gotten gains. The reason the feds seize everything, is because they may have to trace your entire fiscal history to find out where money went and came from. What happens if you owned your house for 5 years, and then started using criminal gains to pay your mortgage for the next 10. What happens when ~20% of your house is criminal gains? Do the feds get to come take your garage, or you guest suite? What about your cars new transmission, do they get to just rip that off the vehicle?
    - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
      Once the ill-gotten gains are reinvested, they become dilute. Other people get involved. If it was a civil matter, the plaintiff could go after your stuff Until They Got Their Money Back. Then they have to stop. For criminal cases, the 'take everything that's tainted' smacks of punishment, not justice. And with other people involved (parents, children, spouse) it can be cruel.
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  > Your logic thus presumes that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to allow a bank robber to transfer the still bound packets of stolen bills to their attorney. Great! So all a cop has to do is get someone forge a withdrawal of someone's funds, wrap the bills, pull the person over for an invented traffic violation, and claim that he found the bills in plain-view during the stop.

tptacek 15y ago

Your logic thus presumes that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to allow a bank robber to transfer the still bound packets of stolen bills to their attorney. Ok? I guess there's a reasonable case to be made there, but I don't agree with it, don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with it, and again note that it conflicts with the law of the land as established by the Supreme Court, which considered this issue directly. I think I'd have been more comfortable with a 7-0 unanimous verdict that set up a series of tests for when the government can/can't withhold assets from legal defense teams than I am with the 5-4 outcome that gives prosecutors blanket discretion to confiscate criminal proceeds. But I'd be equally uncomfortable with a 5-4 Blackmun opinion saying that the right to fund attorneys is inviolate, as that produces an incentive to double down on criminal enterprises to build warchests of legal defense funds. Generally, I want criminal conspiracies to be shut down. I think that's the reasonable-people consensus.

revelation 15y ago
I think the one half of the problem is: is freezing, confiscating funds considered a fine, a penalty, a sentence? In my non-lawyer opinion, I think so. The other half is: can the accused still have a fair trial without the funds? Given that there are assigned counsel, the answer to that question is 'yes'. But as a non-lawyer, I also know that for one, the outcome of a trial can very much depend on your counsel, and two, big-money counsel are better than those assigned.
Sapient 15y ago
But not all of the money seized was gotten illegally. In fact noone except MU knows that for sure at the moment, but what we can be sure of, is that the amount is less than 100%. In the robbed bank case, you know exactly how much was stolen and you can prove it, so seize the $100,000 - but should you seize his car and house too, before he has even been tried?
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  If the man is a career thief, then yes they should seize his car and house too. The point is that when someone is a "career criminal", everything they own is in one way or another traceable to crime. If I rob a bank and use the money to buy a Dominoes franchise, and then use the money I make off of that to buy a house. It's all ill gotten gains. The reason the feds seize everything, is because they may have to trace your entire fiscal history to find out where money went and came from. What happens if you owned your house for 5 years, and then started using criminal gains to pay your mortgage for the next 10. What happens when ~20% of your house is criminal gains? Do the feds get to come take your garage, or you guest suite? What about your cars new transmission, do they get to just rip that off the vehicle?
  - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
    Once the ill-gotten gains are reinvested, they become dilute. Other people get involved. If it was a civil matter, the plaintiff could go after your stuff Until They Got Their Money Back. Then they have to stop. For criminal cases, the 'take everything that's tainted' smacks of punishment, not justice. And with other people involved (parents, children, spouse) it can be cruel.
jpdoctor 15y ago
> Your logic thus presumes that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to allow a bank robber to transfer the still bound packets of stolen bills to their attorney. Great! So all a cop has to do is get someone forge a withdrawal of someone's funds, wrap the bills, pull the person over for an invented traffic violation, and claim that he found the bills in plain-view during the stop.