5 ms·

To solve this, I would go further: any money seized by the government, whether asset forfeiture or a fine (but not fees or taxes) must not go into any governmen

by drdeca 2y ago

To solve this, I would go further: any money seized by the government, whether asset forfeiture or a fine (but not fees or taxes) must not go into any government funds, and should instead be removed from the money supply, if there isn’t a “who it should be returned to”. Well, maybe if money from fines was allowed to go directly to paying for something that directly addresses the specific type of harm that the type of crime the fine was for tends to cause, that would be ok. Like, if someone is fined for damaging the road, that money can go towards fixing roads. But nothing else.

akira2501 2y ago
Just make it a criminal case. "Transporting more than $10,000 cash in service of a crime." Now the government has to prove the details of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than simple preponderance of evidence, and the accused has actual constitutional rights which dictate the process. A key piece there would afford the accused legal representation if they cannot afford it and would allow them to make constitutional arguments about the nature of the search and seizure.
- lazide 2y ago
  That would require evidence and due process, which is exactly what is not desired by the gov’t here. Because money is fungible and proving some specific money came from some specific illegal activity is hard. Making someone else prove it came from a legit source before it disappears is much easier on them. Especially since drug dealers (or most other folks) are not really all that interested in the scrutiny involved in a civil trial. Civil discovery is potentially incredibly invasive, with few of the protections of a criminal case.
gizmo686 2y ago
There is no meaningful difference between removing money from the money supply and returning it to the Treasury.
- trod123 2y ago
  You forgot the bundle that falls off the truck via corruption.

by drdeca 2y ago

akira2501 2y ago

Just make it a criminal case. "Transporting more than $10,000 cash in service of a crime." Now the government has to prove the details of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than simple preponderance of evidence, and the accused has actual constitutional rights which dictate the process. A key piece there would afford the accused legal representation if they cannot afford it and would allow them to make constitutional arguments about the nature of the search and seizure.

lazide 2y ago
That would require evidence and due process, which is exactly what is not desired by the gov’t here. Because money is fungible and proving some specific money came from some specific illegal activity is hard. Making someone else prove it came from a legit source before it disappears is much easier on them. Especially since drug dealers (or most other folks) are not really all that interested in the scrutiny involved in a civil trial. Civil discovery is potentially incredibly invasive, with few of the protections of a criminal case.

gizmo686 2y ago

There is no meaningful difference between removing money from the money supply and returning it to the Treasury.

trod123 2y ago
You forgot the bundle that falls off the truck via corruption.