Progress on rolling back Civil Forfeiture

[TCinVA]

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.

That's why the US government employs forensic accountants...and there's a ton of banking regulations that limit someone's ability to pull those kinds of shenanigans when the Feebs are circling.

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.

You don't really understand what you are talking about.

If a government agency suspects that assets are the instrument of, profit from, or evidence of a crime they can spell out their probable cause and take that to a judge and seize/freeze those assets with a court order...and generally there are criminal charges that go along with that.

The reform here is forbidding federal participation in the kind of side-of-the-road snatching of cash or assets on dubious "probable cause" claims without having actually had to pony up any reasonable argument as to why the money/assets are actually the instrument of, evidence of, or profit from a criminal enterprise. There literally are dudes with badges and guns snatching amounts of money they deem to be "suspicious" with the amount of money in and of itself being the sole basis of suspicion...and no criminal investigation follows, nor do criminal charges result as a part of that action. The IRS will freeze or seize bank accounts solely on the suspicion that someone is "structuring" deposits without any criminal investigation or prosecution resulting. That's bullshit and it needs to stop.

The FBI or SEC's ability to go after white collar crime isn't impacted in the slightest by Holder's decision or by any serious reform efforts. The government doesn't get to take stuff on the basis of "We say so!" or argue that Bernie Madoff is going to get to keep purloined billions if they can't snatch 10 grand from somebody on the side of the road.

[GardoneVT]

That's why the US government employs forensic accountants...and there's a ton of banking regulations that limit someone's ability to pull those kinds of shenanigans when the Feebs are circling.

Yes, because someone who's already broken the law in stealing client funds will comply with banking regs in the last hour.

Is it so hard to conceive that an individual who'd commit securities or banking fraud would move assets at the first sign of an SEC probe, to say nothing about being named in a criminal indictment?

[TCinVA]

Yes, because someone who's already broken the law in stealing client funds will comply with banking regs in the last hour.

Is it so hard to conceive that an individual who'd commit securities or banking fraud would move assets at the first sign of an SEC probe, to say nothing about being named in a criminal indictment?

I had no idea you were an expert in the prosecution of white collar criminals, forensic accounting, or banking regulations.

Please do carry on and explain to us how the federal government would be powerless to deal with white collar criminals if Deputy Fife can't lift 10 grand off of somebody on the side of the road merely on suspicion.

[Byron]

Is it so hard to conceive that an individual who'd commit securities or banking fraud would move assets at the first sign of an SEC probe, to say nothing about being named in a criminal indictment?

It shocks me how comfortable you are with the concept of "guilty until proven innocent."

Between this thread and the FBI-posing-as-repairmen-and-lying-to-judges thread, I don't understand where you get off bitching about "rights" in other threads.

[GardoneVT]

It shocks me how comfortable you are with the concept of "guilty until proven innocent."

Between this thread and the FBI-posing-as-repairmen-and-lying-to-judges thread, I don't understand where you get off bitching about "rights" in other threads.

I never knew professional Constitutional scholars like you had such fragile egos; duly noted.

[Gadfly]

I guess it has always been less ambiguous for my group. We typically find multi kilo dope along with the cash we seize. And even in the scenario I listed above, we have an informant giving info to link the cash we seized to dope. Just a cold traffic stop and seizure is indeed a bit fishy. As I said, it is not illegal to have cash.

[TCinVA]

I guess it has always been less ambiguous for my group. We typically find multi kilo dope along with the cash we seize. And even in the scenario I listed above, we have an informant giving info to link the cash we seized to dope. Just a cold traffic stop and seizure is indeed a bit fishy. As I said, it is not illegal to have cash.

Right. You and your team probably aren't going to "seminars" where dim bulbs are teaching asset forfeiture as a means of enhancing your department's budget. A buddy of mine who worked a lot of CP cases seized a whole bunch of electronic equipment from perps...but in conjunction with criminal charges and having actually proven that the computer he was seizing was the instrument of a crime, namely the thing they were using to traffic CP.

In my area there's a gang/dope task force that's largely funded by seizures, but it's seizures that are done in conjunction with criminal prosecutions. As an example, when they raided a trailer and found a bunch of guns, money, and ten to 14 year old girls being used as prostitutes by SUR-13 they went through the proper process to seize the money they found during the execution of a legit search warrant. Perfectly legit as the money was found in conjunction with a legit criminal investigation and was unquestionably the profits of illegal activity...like the forced prostitution of the little girls found in the same trailer.

They didn't stop somebody on I-81 or I-64, find "too much" cash for their liking, and then seize it absent a warrant or any criminal investigation or followup. Unfortunately that kind of nonsense is happening and it needs to be stopped.

[Gadfly]

No seminars here.

I work for the feds. We are the definition of "oversight". Audits, 10 different signatures required per each step of your case, with AUSA concurrence of course... I am sometimes amazed we are actually allowed to arrest crooks, let alone seize anything.

Folks should also note, we cant seize something that has a bank loan on it. If the crook has a new BMW, but only paid on it 18 months, the bank still technically owns it, and we cant take it. If the crook paid cash for it with no financing, then it is seized for sure. Usually, we defer to the bank on houses, boats and cars unless they are over 80% paid for, and even then we typically have to pay off the balance to the bank. The bank is not a suspect, so we cant deny them payment on the rest of the money owed.

Who know what the locals do...

[ford.304]

I don't even have a problem with initial seizure under probable cause, but it should work the same way as holding someone. If you don't charge them with anything, they should be free to go. If there's no criminal charges, they should have their stuff returned, with no fee or proof required. Same if they are acquitted.

And the cash seized shouldn't go anywhere near the justice system's budgets.

[RevolverRob]

Asset forfeiture absent of criminal conviction is theft and those that have done it should be prosecuted for theft.

I wait for the day that will happen....