4 ms·

Civil forfeiture rules are disgusting. Sadly there are plenty of stories out there like this, people have lost their homes, cars and livelihoods because of thes

Civil forfeiture rules are disgusting. Sadly there are plenty of stories out there like this, people have lost their homes, cars and livelihoods because of these draconian laws around asset forfeiture. The circumstances under which your property can be taken are incredibly overreaching and unfair. There have been situations where people have had their homes taken away for ridiculous situations like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p... We need to get rid of these laws entirely or at the very least, make it a more fair playing field. The authorities should be expected to bring some evidence to the table, not assume guilty until proven innocence.

hinkley 11y ago
I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs" Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing access for approved uses (like say legal fees) would achieve the same results without pissing all over the sixth amendment.
- minot 11y ago
  Can I just lock up all of some politician's fund right before an election and only allow access to fight the case which will likely take months? Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate? Where do we draw the line?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Can I do the same with a business? Steve Jackson Games? Delorean?
  - fiatmoney 11y ago
    "Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate?" Yes, actually. It's a standard tactic that was used in, eg, the prosecution of Michael Milken. It's also nice if you can get some kind of tax angle going so you can threaten the target's wife as well.
- harryh 11y ago
  A bank robber should be able to use the money they steal to defend themselves?
  - diyorgasms 11y ago
    Someone accused of robbing a bank should not be able to use their own money to defend themselves against such an accusation? You have a major problem with your presumption of guilt.
    - hinkley 11y ago
      I suspect there's some sad commentary on the state of humanity that you have bother yourself to say something like this. Whatever happened to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"? I know that has origins in English Law but the Founding Fathers considered it to be so important it figures heavily in the Bill of Rights.
    - harryh 11y ago
      Assets aren't forfeited without evidence of guilt.
      - dpark 11y ago
        Yes, they are, quite frequently. That's the entire point of the article. It's also quite pretty much the definition of civil asset forfeiture. Assets are taken on simple suspicion of criminal activity, and the assets' retention by the state is not predicated on criminal guilt of the owner. In fact it is the assets themselves which are sued by the state (which makes no sense, but is nonetheless true). > Once property has been seized, the burden of proof falls on the defendant to get it back -- even if the cops ultimately never charge them with a crime. "We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."
        harryh 11y ago
        Yes, the DEA has to show evidence that the money is the result of a drug sale or some other illegal activity. They don't have to show that any given person was involved in that sale. I don't really have a problem with that.
j42 11y ago
Honestly we're really lucky to have these asset forfeiture programs in place; money has been given a free reign for far too long. The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned protocol... If the government didn't, who would hold our money accountable for the criminal behavior it's been involved in? Just look at the facts... almost 80% of bills have touched drugs! Appalling! And they're transparent about the process--they put that filthy money on trial even though it keeps refusing to talk. Enough 'shock and awe' from our DA's and I know we'll get there eventually... We need harsher sentencing guidelines!! [United States vs. $1,058.00 of U.S. Currency](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-105800-in-us-currency https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-105800-in-us-curre...) I certainly sleep better at night knowing that the currency loitering in my pocket doesn't get a pass on its delinquent past just because it's an inanimate object...
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I see a future in politics for you.
- leap_ahead 11y ago
  >> The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned protocol Criminals have a large body of very smart people working for them to develop new creative ways or hiding money flows across different legal entities and different jurisdictions. These people don't travel with cash. You won't even find out their names. These laws don't help with serious offenders just catch some small fish on occasion and also terrorize ordinary innocent people.
  - j42 11y ago
    Very true, and actually you touched on something really interesting--when a government attempts to regulate social behavior that cannot be regulated (e.g. drugs, morals, thought, etc.) you see this dynamic take over. In the case of black markets, yes, there is a great deal of obfuscation, however on a civil level and in business with the tax code it essentially creates an "arms race of precedent" in the courts, wherein those with capital exploit loopholes in the legal system to establish new precedents that can circumvent any spirit of the law for decades to come. In most cases I see this as a positive thing, but when state and federal prosecutors use this against civilians, it can have some truly ridiculous outcomes. Speaking to your comment about the black market specifically, though, I raised this concern when Obama signed that executive notice last month pertaining to individuals on the SDN list--as a hypothetical, if someone on that list were to have a criminal enterprise, and if that criminal enterprise was using a legitimate merchant processing account to obfuscate funds (as per your "ways of hiding money"), then ANYONE who had ever processed a credit-card transaction with that account would be liable to have their assets frozen indefinitely and with impunity by the US government. Dangerous precedent indeed.

hinkley 11y ago

I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs" Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing access for approved uses (like say legal fees) would achieve the same results without pissing all over the sixth amendment.

minot 11y ago
Can I just lock up all of some politician's fund right before an election and only allow access to fight the case which will likely take months? Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate? Where do we draw the line?
- pjc50 11y ago
  Can I do the same with a business? Steve Jackson Games? Delorean?
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  "Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate?" Yes, actually. It's a standard tactic that was used in, eg, the prosecution of Michael Milken. It's also nice if you can get some kind of tax angle going so you can threaten the target's wife as well.
harryh 11y ago
A bank robber should be able to use the money they steal to defend themselves?
- diyorgasms 11y ago
  Someone accused of robbing a bank should not be able to use their own money to defend themselves against such an accusation? You have a major problem with your presumption of guilt.
  - hinkley 11y ago
    I suspect there's some sad commentary on the state of humanity that you have bother yourself to say something like this. Whatever happened to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"? I know that has origins in English Law but the Founding Fathers considered it to be so important it figures heavily in the Bill of Rights.
  - harryh 11y ago
    Assets aren't forfeited without evidence of guilt.
    - dpark 11y ago
      Yes, they are, quite frequently. That's the entire point of the article. It's also quite pretty much the definition of civil asset forfeiture. Assets are taken on simple suspicion of criminal activity, and the assets' retention by the state is not predicated on criminal guilt of the owner. In fact it is the assets themselves which are sued by the state (which makes no sense, but is nonetheless true). > Once property has been seized, the burden of proof falls on the defendant to get it back -- even if the cops ultimately never charge them with a crime. "We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."
      - harryh 11y ago
        Yes, the DEA has to show evidence that the money is the result of a drug sale or some other illegal activity. They don't have to show that any given person was involved in that sale. I don't really have a problem with that.

j42 11y ago

Honestly we're really lucky to have these asset forfeiture programs in place; money has been given a free reign for far too long. The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned protocol... If the government didn't, who would hold our money accountable for the criminal behavior it's been involved in? Just look at the facts... almost 80% of bills have touched drugs! Appalling! And they're transparent about the process--they put that filthy money on trial even though it keeps refusing to talk. Enough 'shock and awe' from our DA's and I know we'll get there eventually... We need harsher sentencing guidelines!! [United States vs. $1,058.00 of U.S. Currency](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-105800-in-us-currency https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-105800-in-us-curre...) I certainly sleep better at night knowing that the currency loitering in my pocket doesn't get a pass on its delinquent past just because it's an inanimate object...

danieltillett 11y ago
I see a future in politics for you.
leap_ahead 11y ago
>> The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned protocol Criminals have a large body of very smart people working for them to develop new creative ways or hiding money flows across different legal entities and different jurisdictions. These people don't travel with cash. You won't even find out their names. These laws don't help with serious offenders just catch some small fish on occasion and also terrorize ordinary innocent people.
- j42 11y ago
  Very true, and actually you touched on something really interesting--when a government attempts to regulate social behavior that cannot be regulated (e.g. drugs, morals, thought, etc.) you see this dynamic take over. In the case of black markets, yes, there is a great deal of obfuscation, however on a civil level and in business with the tax code it essentially creates an "arms race of precedent" in the courts, wherein those with capital exploit loopholes in the legal system to establish new precedents that can circumvent any spirit of the law for decades to come. In most cases I see this as a positive thing, but when state and federal prosecutors use this against civilians, it can have some truly ridiculous outcomes. Speaking to your comment about the black market specifically, though, I raised this concern when Obama signed that executive notice last month pertaining to individuals on the SDN list--as a hypothetical, if someone on that list were to have a criminal enterprise, and if that criminal enterprise was using a legitimate merchant processing account to obfuscate funds (as per your "ways of hiding money"), then ANYONE who had ever processed a credit-card transaction with that account would be liable to have their assets frozen indefinitely and with impunity by the US government. Dangerous precedent indeed.