Progress on rolling back Civil Forfeiture

[cclaxton]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...feiture-abuse/
Now we need to lobby our State governments to forbid this tyrannical practice.
cody

[GardoneVT]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...feiture-abuse/
Now we need to lobby our State governments to forbid this tyrannical practice.
cody

Its my belief the lowlife who defrauds people out of their life savings via securities fraud (for one example) should lose 'his' mansions and Aston Martins via forfeiture.

[MichaelD]

Its my belief the lowlife who defrauds people out of their life savings via securities fraud (for one example) should lose 'his' mansions and Aston Martins via forfeiture.

I agree, but only *after* the lowlife in question has gone to trial and has been found guilty. The main issue with civil forfeiture as it has been practiced is that an accused person often has their assets seized without a trial.

[cclaxton]

I agree, but only *after* the lowlife in question has gone to trial and has been found guilty. The main issue with civil forfeiture as it has been practiced is that an accused person often has their assets seized without a trial.

I have been lobbying and educating my State and Federal legislators for about the past six months on this issue. I have been talking about this issue to whoever will listen. Get the word out, contact legislators, keep up the momentum. I can understand that a criminal enterprise may need to have its assets frozen when there is clear and convincing evidence and a judge has ruled it should be frozen. But the taking of the property or cash or assets should be for a court to decide after conviction.
Cody

[TCinVA]

Its my belief the lowlife who defrauds people out of their life savings via securities fraud (for one example) should lose 'his' mansions and Aston Martins via forfeiture.

Seizing the profits from, evidence of, or instrument of a crime isn't a problem.

The problem is that there are agencies out there snatching money and property on suspicion that it's one of those things, and then they force you to go to court to prove your property is innocent to the satisfaction of the court system that gets to keep a cut of the money/property if the forfeiture is approved.

If, for instance, you're traveling down the road with $10,000.00 in cash you have withdrawn from savings to buy a vintage guitar you've been lusting after for years and get pulled over, the officer who pulls you over can allege that's an "unusual" amount of cash to travel with and YOINK! it's snatched from you right then and there and you have to go to court and prove you weren't involved in drug trafficking to get a portion of it back. I say a "portion" because invariably some of it will be consumed in the ever present "court costs" for the trial of your money.

That's not how asset forfeiture is supposed to work, and yet that's the direction it's been going for far too flippin' long. Seizing property absent a criminal conviction...or even criminal charges...is bullshit.

[cclaxton]

http://endforfeiture.com/#action
Cody

[LittleLebowski]

Seizing the profits from, evidence of, or instrument of a crime isn't a problem.

The problem is that there are agencies out there snatching money and property on suspicion that it's one of those things, and then they force you to go to court to prove your property is innocent to the satisfaction of the court system that gets to keep a cut of the money/property if the forfeiture is approved.

If, for instance, you're traveling down the road with $10,000.00 in cash you have withdrawn from savings to buy a vintage guitar you've been lusting after for years and get pulled over, the officer who pulls you over can allege that's an "unusual" amount of cash to travel with and YOINK! it's snatched from you right then and there and you have to go to court and prove you weren't involved in drug trafficking to get a portion of it back. I say a "portion" because invariably some of it will be consumed in the ever present "court costs" for the trial of your money.

That's not how asset forfeiture is supposed to work, and yet that's the direction it's been going for far too flippin' long. Seizing property absent a criminal conviction...or even criminal charges...is bullshit.

See Tennessee. Asset forfeiture run amok there.

[Gadfly]

I get why people are upset about it. But it was a good tool when utilized legally and properly. Experiences will vary from state to state and agency to agency. Some agencies have screwed it all up and were abusive. Now all cops will pay the price for their abuse.

What I have seen is something to the effect of... Snitch knows dope money is heading south. Snitch tells cops which car is loaded. Cops wait for a traffic violation and pull over car. Cops ask "any guns knives, nuclear weapons, dope or bulk cash in the car?" They answerer is almost always "no". Or better yet, the person stopped denies it is their car, they simply "borrowed it from a friend". Cop gets consent or develops PC to search. Once cash is found, crook typically denies ownership, since he does not want to admit knowledge of the conspiracy. So the officers give the guy a receipt for the money (so the cartel wont kill him for the loss) and say that the owner of the car has 30 to 90 days to come down to the court house with his last years W2 and tax return to claim the money. Everyone who has showed up has gotten their money back. But that is the rare exception. Most consider the loss the cost of doing business, and most have no W2, have never paid taxes, and/or they are illegally in the US... If your last years tax return shows you made $36,000 and you have $150,000 in your car, that will raise some IRS attention that most want to avoid.

Some jurisdictions abuse this. I get that. But in my experience, there is little random about most "random stops". They are simply used as a way to insulate the source of information and keep them safe.

As TC in VA said, "traveling down the road with $10,000.00 in cash you have withdrawn from savings to buy a vintage guitar you've been lusting after for years" would be devastating to lose. But, when asked, "are you transporting large amounts of currency? or Anything in the car I should know about?" You can simply say you have cash. It is NOT illegal to transport the cash around. It is bullshit if it seized.

But, It IS illegal to take more than $10,000 in US currency outside the US without declaring it on Customs declaration. This is usually how my agency gets a hold of it. People trying to sneak cash across the border. If you say, "yes, I have $27,000 on me and I am going to Mexico" all we can really do is hand you the form to fill out and say have a nice day. It is when you deny having any cash and they find it that the seizure will begin.

It is a shame some small town yokels used it as a personal piggy bank and ruined a good enforcement tool. A tool that when properly and legally utilized, it cut into cartel profits.

I am sure I will take heat for this. I am just passing on my experience with the process.

[cclaxton]

I get why people are upset about it. But it was a good tool when utilized legally and properly. Experiences will vary from state to state and agency to agency. Some agencies have screwed it all up and were abusive. Now all cops will pay the price for their abuse.

What I have seen is something to the effect of... Snitch knows dope money is heading south. Snitch tells cops which car is loaded. Cops wait for a traffic violation and pull over car. Cops ask "any guns knives, nuclear weapons, dope or bulk cash in the car?" They answerer is almost always "no". Or better yet, the person stopped denies it is their car, they simply "borrowed it from a friend". Cop gets consent or develops PC to search. Once cash is found, crook typically denies ownership, since he does not want to admit knowledge of the conspiracy. So the officers give the guy a receipt for the money (so the cartel wont kill him for the loss) and say that the owner of the car has 30 to 90 days to come down to the court house with his last years W2 and tax return to claim the money. Everyone who has showed up has gotten their money back. But that is the rare exception. Most consider the loss the cost of doing business, and most have no W2, have never paid taxes, and/or they are illegally in the US... If your last years tax return shows you made $36,000 and you have $150,000 in your car, that will raise some IRS attention that most want to avoid.

Some jurisdictions abuse this. I get that. But in my experience, there is little random about most "random stops". They are simply used as a way to insulate the source of information and keep them safe.

As TC in VA said, "traveling down the road with $10,000.00 in cash you have withdrawn from savings to buy a vintage guitar you've been lusting after for years" would be devastating to lose. But, when asked, "are you transporting large amounts of currency? or Anything in the car I should know about?" You can simply say you have cash. It is NOT illegal to transport the cash around. It is bullshit if it seized.

But, It IS illegal to take more than $10,000 in US currency outside the US without declaring it on Customs declaration. This is usually how my agency gets a hold of it. People trying to sneak cash across the border. If you say, "yes, I have $27,000 on me and I am going to Mexico" all we can really do is hand you the form to fill out and say have a nice day. It is when you deny having any cash and they find it that the seizure will begin.

It is a shame some small town yokels used it as a personal piggy bank and ruined a good enforcement tool. A tool that when properly and legally utilized, it cut into cartel profits.

I am sure I will take heat for this. I am just passing on my experience with the process.

I see no reason why the court can't issue a order to freeze/hold the assets after showing adequate evidence the cash/assets were used or intended for a criminal enterprise. Putting this decision in the hands of law enforcement is bound to lead to abuse. The court is the right and proper place to get the order and takes the decision out of the hands of law enforcement. This not just a local issue. There are hundreds of citizens who have no criminal activity who have got caught up in this. I know of one guy in Virginia who owned a Bar B Que place and ran a cash business. He took thousands of dollars to Fairfax County to buy new kitchen equipment. They pulled him over for a minor car infraction, saw a misdemeanor conviction for weed, and took the money. He eventually won in court, but he lost his business.
That is an outrage and tyranny at its worse.
Cody

[GardoneVT]

.

That's not how asset forfeiture is supposed to work, and yet that's the direction it's been going for far too flippin' long. Seizing property absent a criminal conviction...or even criminal charges...is bullshit.

An unfortunate development. That being said, many bad guys of the white collar variety are smart enough to move their assets once they see a letter with their name in the "defendant" column.Assets which can serve as evidence of wrongdoing, or restitution for the defrauded investors.

Being able to seize those assets before charges are filed means the difference between a bad guy truly being punished for his actions, versus invertors' stolen funds collecting interest in an offshore account-or another fraudmonger walking for lack of evidence.