4 ms·

they froze the assets that he was accused of stealing. I see nothing wrong with the assets that were in dispute being frozen until it could be determined (by th

they froze the assets that he was accused of stealing. I see nothing wrong with the assets that were in dispute being frozen until it could be determined (by the court) who was the rightful owner of those funds. In other words, the question is: should a person be permitted to use funds possibly acquired through illegal activity to defend themselves from a prosecution regarding that same activity? If I break into your home and steal $10K from your safe, should I be permitted to use that $10K on my defense? Keeping in mind, that if I do so, the $10K will no longer be there... so if I lose, your $10K will be gone.

rgbrenner 14y ago
It should also be noted in Black's case, much of his assets were frozen by other (non-US) governments. Here's a Canadian court freezing his worldwide assets, at the request of Hollinger Inc (the company he once controlled): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm
rgbrenner 14y ago
One other thing (yes, I realize I'm replying to myself): In non-monetary crimes.. burglary, for example.. the accused does not get to hold onto the property they are accused of stealing. It sits in an evidence locker until the trial is over, and then it's returned to either the accused or the victim (or auctioned off). In a way, the freezing of the funds in a white-collar crime is very similar.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
There is an easy way out of this. If the government seizes any of your assets prior to finding you guilty, they should have to lend you the market value of the assets at no interest solely for the purposes of putting on your defense. If you then lose, you never get the stolen assets back (which go back to the owner) and you continue to owe the government whatever money you borrowed, which they collect as though it were unpaid taxes. This will understandably result in many defendants borrowing money which they will never be able to repay because they are then sentenced prison, but that's the cost of doing business. Call it de facto adequate funding of the public defender's office.

rgbrenner 14y ago

It should also be noted in Black's case, much of his assets were frozen by other (non-US) governments. Here's a Canadian court freezing his worldwide assets, at the request of Hollinger Inc (the company he once controlled): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm

rgbrenner 14y ago

One other thing (yes, I realize I'm replying to myself): In non-monetary crimes.. burglary, for example.. the accused does not get to hold onto the property they are accused of stealing. It sits in an evidence locker until the trial is over, and then it's returned to either the accused or the victim (or auctioned off). In a way, the freezing of the funds in a white-collar crime is very similar.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

There is an easy way out of this. If the government seizes any of your assets prior to finding you guilty, they should have to lend you the market value of the assets at no interest solely for the purposes of putting on your defense. If you then lose, you never get the stolen assets back (which go back to the owner) and you continue to owe the government whatever money you borrowed, which they collect as though it were unpaid taxes. This will understandably result in many defendants borrowing money which they will never be able to repay because they are then sentenced prison, but that's the cost of doing business. Call it de facto adequate funding of the public defender's office.