Asset Forfeiture Laws Doomed?

[Yeekim]

Well, legally it doesn't and imo it shouldn't either.

 

[Traitorfish]

Shrug. AML legislation might not adhere to liberal convention - and I might not either, in this particular regard. Furthermore (at least in EU), money laundering is considered a separate offense, independent of whatever crime the money under question was obtained through and may well boil down to simply being in possession of criminal proceeds. See art 1 of AMLD IV.
In a case of "Indeed, officer, there appear to be 2 million € in the trunk of my Lamborghini. No, I have never held a job. No, I have never declared any income. No, I don't wish to explain how I came to possess that money", it should not be required of the state to prove how exactly he came to possess it. The crime that yielded this may have been committed by someone else is another jurisdiction.

But what business of that is the police officer's? It's a free country, a man is entitled to have two million Euros in his trunk if he wishes. There is not, to my knowledge, any law against it, in Europe or in the United States. The police are an executive body, not a legislative one, their job is to enforce the law, not make it up.

 

[innonimatu]

Shrug. AML legislation might not adhere to liberal convention - and I might not either, in this particular regard. Furthermore (at least in EU), money laundering is considered a separate offense, independent of whatever crime the money under question was obtained through and may well boil down to simply being in possession of criminal proceeds. See art 1 of AMLD IV.
In a case of "Indeed, officer, there appear to be 2 million € in the trunk of my Lamborghini. No, I have never held a job. No, I have never declared any income. No, I don't wish to explain how I came to possess that money", it should not be required of the state to prove how exactly he came to possess it. The crime that yielded this may have been committed by someone else is another jurisdiction.

Big brother would be proud. Again, screw the EU!

It really shouldn't matter whether the assets under question are discovered under a mattress or on a bank account.

So the should police routinely check your bank balance and seize it when the officer doing it don't like the value? How much money is each citizen allowed to have?

You beloved EU promotes an economic system where each citizen must pay for everything, after the systematic dismantling of social services provided by the state in housing, health care, education etc, and its replacement by "the market". What one is able to do depends now on the money he has. And you're saying that state agents should be able to arbitrarily seize that money on a whim. It sould be up to them to decide whether any citizen was being to uppity, acting above its social status, and should therefore be cut down by seizing the sole thing that in the EU will determine the "freedom of action" of that citizen, his liquid assets?

Because this seizure of "suspicions money" will of course apply to the rabble, but not to the CEO or the highly place politician? Except during some power fight one of those loses.

There's lots of cheap talk here about how fascism is coming. Well, we've finally found a good example of how it can be made to work. Already works in some places.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm beginning to like the concept of seizing assets beyond a certain amount. Can we start with Trump?

 

[innonimatu]

I'm beginning to like the concept of seizing assets beyond a certain amount. Can we start with Trump?

Beware that it is the Trumps doing the seizing now, because they're the ones in power...

 

[Berzerker]

this is one of those issues the left and right tend to agree and the middle is in the wrong. I guess the middle doesn't get too upset until the victims obtain the media's blessing. I thought it was a form of asset forfeiture that started the Libyan revolution, maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

[plarq]

In other news, Bitcoin is at all time high. Guess it is the way of countering the asset forfeiture laws by storing them overseas.

 

[Commodore]

Getting rid of civil asset forfeiture?
Good luck trying to fight any kind of half-competent money laundering anywhere.

A small price to pay to keep local and state governments from covering their budget shortfalls through property stolen from citizens.

 

[Yeekim]

But what business of that is the police officer's? It's a free country, a man is entitled to have two million Euros in his trunk if he wishes. There is not, to my knowledge, any law against it, in Europe or in the United States. The police are an executive body, not a legislative one, their job is to enforce the law, not make it up.

How about you re-read the comment you just replied to?

money laundering is considered a separate offense, independent of whatever crime the money under question was obtained through and may well boil down to simply being in possession of criminal proceeds.

So the should police routinely check your bank balance and seize it when the officer doing it don't like the value? How much money is each citizen allowed to have?

It is the bank that's doing this, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report

You beloved EU promotes an economic system where each citizen must pay for everything, after the systematic dismantling of social services provided by the state in housing, health care, education etc, and its replacement by "the market".

:checks reality: Yup. Education still free, all the way through college. Health care still paid by state. Still in EU.

And you're saying that state agents should be able to arbitrarily seize that money on a whim.

Why "arbitrarily" and "on a whim"? I find it strange that you are apparently OK with legal system deciding over someone's innocence of guilt in a murder trial but not with establishing whether certain assets have been legally obtained or not.

Because this seizure of suspicions money" will of course apply to the rabble, but not to the CEO or the highly place politician? Except during some power fight one of those loses.

So you're worried about corruption but against steps that would most effectively counter it?

I'm beginning to like the concept of seizing assets beyond a certain amount. Can we start with Trump?

Having your elected officials publicly declare their assets would be a good start.

 

[Samson]

Why "arbitrarily" and "on a whim"? I find it strange that you are apparently OK with legal system deciding over someone's innocence of guilt in a murder trial but not with establishing whether certain assets have been legally obtained or not.

No, that is not what the problem is. For the legal system to decide over someone's innocence or guilt in a murder trial the state must prove beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that the someone committed the murder. For you to lose your money a single "beat" cop has to finds you with money. You then have to prove (and pay for the proof without the money they took) that you got the money legally. This is quite different. If the burden of proof was the same as to get someone convicted of murder people would not be complaining.

 

[Yeekim]

Yes, that is called reverse onus (of proof).
When was the last time you had a large amount of money without a record of its origin?

 

[Samson]

Yes, that is called reverse onus (of proof).
When was the last time you had a large amount of money without a record of its origin?

Last time I bought a car privately. You pretty much have to if you do not want to wait for a cheque to clear before taking ownership.

 

[Yeekim]

Uh...
1) Unless you have a rather expensive taste in cars, we might have a different understanding of a "large amount".
2) So how'd you raise that money? If you withdrew it from bank and the sum was consistent with your income (salary, dividends, etc), it should by trivial to prove...
3) Finally... a cheque? Wut? Where do you live again?

 

[Samson]

Uh...
1) Unless you have a rather expensive taste in cars, we might have a different understanding of a "large amount".
2) So how'd you raise that money? If you withdrew it from bank and the sum was consistent with your income (salary, dividends, etc), it should by trivial to prove...
3) Finally... a cheque? Wut? Where do you live again?

1) I guess we do.
2) Not at the side of the road. If it is after that then I need to get a lawyer which I cannot afford 'cos the police have taken all my liquid assets.
3) The only options I know about to buy a car privately is cash or cheque, with cash being the only one that works if you need the car now.

[EDIT] Here is a completely unrelated article, just to show that paying over $20,000 cash for a car is a thing people do.

 

[Yeekim]

1) I should probably clarify I didn't wish to insinuate that I'm rich (I'm not). My point was that there needs to be reasonably high threshold (say, 50,000?) before burden of proof can be shifted to the citizen. As I said, I know the whole scheme has been horribly abused in the US.
2) If you want to get a mortgage and prove your income to the bank, do you need a lawyer for that? Anyway, as long as I have a smartphone, I could easily do it at the side of a road...
3) If someone wanted to pay me by check, I'd probably look like he insisted on paying in squirrel pelts. I don't think I've ever even seen one irl.

 

[Samson]

1) I should probably clarify I didn't wish to insinuate that I'm rich (I'm not). My point was that there needs to be reasonably high threshold (say, 50,000?) before burden of proof can be shifted to the citizen. As I said, I know the whole scheme has been horribly abused in the US.
2) If you want to get a mortgage and prove your income to the bank, do you need a lawyer for that? Anyway, as long as I have a smartphone, I could easily do it at the side of a road...
3) If someone wanted to pay me by check, I'd probably look like he insisted on paying in squirrel pelts. I don't think I've ever even seen one irl.

If we need a law that explicitly says that if you have over 50 grand in cash you need to be able to justify it, then that would be one thing, but we do not.
I do not trust banks / mobile phones enough to do online banking, but even then what if you got the money selling your last car? Getting a mortgage is an optional deal between 2 private entities that can be done at a time of my choosing. Getting pulled over is not like that. This is a real thing that happens, we are not talking hypotheticals here.
I have never used a cheque for this, because if I am buying a car it is because I need a car. I do wonder how other people do it. I never buy from a garage, they charge far to much markup.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes, that is called reverse onus (of proof).
When was the last time you had a large amount of money without a record of its origin?

When I was a beat cop.

 

[Berzerker]

Getting rid of civil asset forfeiture?
Good luck trying to fight any kind of half-competent money laundering anywhere.

Dont people have to be convicted of money laundering before their money or freedom is taken by the state?

Guilty men, not guilty dollars.

I recall the cases mentioned by Zkribbler and I know the option of civil forfeiture has been abused to hell and back in US... but in principle, it is not unreasonable to expect people to be able to explain the source of their assets (above certain threshold).

The irony is civil forfeiture has been abused to hell and back in the US but it is reasonable for people to remain silent when asked to explain the source of their assets. It aint up to the accused to prove their alleged guilt.

He generally is which is why it surprised me to find him in dissent.

His reasoning:

In my view, petitioners have not demonstrated that defendants whose convictions have been reversed possess a substantive entitlement, under either state law or the Constitution, to recover money they paid to the State pursuant to their convictions.

Sometimes the legal wrangling goes over my head, but if I'm convicted of a crime and the conviction is over turned, am I not substantively entitled to my freedom? The fruits of my labor? If the state incorrectly takes my money and that mistake is discovered, I'd think it would be corrected too.

 

[rah]

The last car I bought, I paid with a check and drove off with the car.
I was able to make a good deal once they knew I was paying with the equivalent of cash.
They tried their typical with all the add on costs, but I said the only way I'm buying is if I walk off signing a check for XX,XXXX.
In the end they buckled.
(it was a large dealer and they did call the bank before they let me drive off)

 

[Traitorfish]

How about you re-read the comment you just replied to?

I did read it. If the police believe that a person is in possession of the proceeds of crime, the onus should still be on them to prove it, as much as if they believe that the person had themselves committed that crime. It's not inherently the state's business why you've chosen to haul a million dollars around in the trunk of your car, not unless they can demonstrate reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good.