Asset Forfeiture?

[hunarcy]

Do I not have a right to my own property? Shouldn't I be CONVICTED of a crime before my property becomes forfeit?

According to SCOTUS, No.

Then we, as a people, should demand that law be changed.

 

[martybegan]

Do I not have a right to my own property? Shouldn't I be CONVICTED of a crime before my property becomes forfeit?

You are pulled over and a cop find a large amount of cash (without a bank receipt) and drug paraphernalia, you should get to keep the cash and the drug paraphernalia?

I should be arrested for the drug paraphernalia and my property held as evidence of a crime. But, I don't lose ownership unless I'm convicted of a crime.

and the loss of ownership has to be comparable to the crime. One should not lose 10k in cash over a hash pipe.

I don't think that there should be an automatic assumption that large amounts of cash is only related to drug use.

I agree, but that's what a lot of these forfeiture proceedings are started for.

 

[OnePercenter]

I should be arrested for the drug paraphernalia and my property held as evidence of a crime. But, I don't lose ownership unless I'm convicted of a crime.

You're possessing drug paraphernalia. You are committing a crime. The police apply to the courts for a possession order which you have a right to fight. Some have and some won.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

No, it's wrong to seize someone's property when they haven't even been convicted of a crime.

 

[OnePercenter]

Sorry, not even charged with insider trading.

Charges related to insider trading, (Lying about a stock sale, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice) Having problems with English? You Canadian also?

 

[OnePercenter]

and the loss of ownership has to be comparable to the crime. One should not lose 10k in cash over a hash pipe.

10K in cash without a bank receipt is money laundering.

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't think that there should be an automatic assumption that large amounts of cash is only related to drug use.

When you also have a hash pipe?

Want to have a little fun? The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

and the loss of ownership has to be comparable to the crime. One should not lose 10k in cash over a hash pipe.

10K in cash without a bank receipt is money laundering.

No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.

 

[Rozman]

and the loss of ownership has to be comparable to the crime. One should not lose 10k in cash over a hash pipe.

10K in cash without a bank receipt is money laundering.

I saw a story recently where a cash business has had their revenue from their legimate business frozen....
That's the problem with this type of law...There doesn't seem to be a bit of common sense in it.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.

The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.

The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.

The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.

The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.

That isnt a response.
Holding 10k in cash is not money laundering. It is holding 10k in cash.
Police confiscate assets unrelated to the crime and out of proportion to the evidence. Getting them returned is expensive and time consuming and often out of the range of the average person.

 

[The Rabbi]

and the loss of ownership has to be comparable to the crime. One should not lose 10k in cash over a hash pipe.

10K in cash without a bank receipt is money laundering.

I saw a story recently where a cash business has had their revenue from their legimate business frozen....
That's the problem with this type of law...There doesn't seem to be a bit of common sense in it.

No, there'sa lot of common sense.
We, the law enforcement agency, arent getting enough money. So we're gonna take it from people who really can't protest too much.
Sounds like common sense to me

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, not even charged with insider trading.

Charges related to insider trading, (Lying about a stock sale, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice) Having problems with English? You Canadian also?

She didn't commit insider trading, she wasn't charged with insider trading, she wasn't convicted of insider trading.

Having problems with English as well as math?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and the loss of ownership has to be comparable to the crime. One should not lose 10k in cash over a hash pipe.

10K in cash without a bank receipt is money laundering.

10K in cash without a bank receipt is money laundering.

No it isn't.

Money laundering is the generic term used to describe the process by which criminals disguise the original ownership and control of the proceeds of criminal conduct by making such proceeds appear to have derived from a legitimate source.
The processes by which criminally derived property may be laundered are extensive. Though criminal money may be successfully laundered without the assistance of the financial sector, the reality is that hundreds of billions of dollars of criminally derived money is laundered through financial institutions, annually. The nature of the services and products offered by the financial services industry (namely managing, controlling and possessing money and property belonging to others) means that it is vulnerable to abuse by money launderers.

Frequently Asked Questions - What is Money Laundering - ICA

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, not even charged with insider trading.

Charges related to insider trading, (Lying about a stock sale, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice) Having problems with English? You Canadian also?

She didn't commit insider trading, she wasn't charged with insider trading, she wasn't convicted of insider trading.

Having problems with English as well as math?

He's factually challenged. That's a nice way of saying he's a liar.

 

[OnePercenter]

I saw a story recently where a cash business has had their revenue from their legimate business frozen....
That's the problem with this type of law...There doesn't seem to be a bit of common sense in it.

Was that a candle shop doing 250k/mo in business?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, not even charged with insider trading.

Charges related to insider trading, (Lying about a stock sale, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice) Having problems with English? You Canadian also?

She didn't commit insider trading, she wasn't charged with insider trading, she wasn't convicted of insider trading.

Having problems with English as well as math?

He's factually challenged. That's a nice way of saying he's a liar.

He's also full of shit.

 

[OnePercenter]

That isnt a response.
Holding 10k in cash is not money laundering. It is holding 10k in cash.
Police confiscate assets unrelated to the crime and out of proportion to the evidence. Getting them returned is expensive and time consuming and often out of the range of the average person.

The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens. You have to prove where the money came from.

The issue is due process. The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.

 

[OnePercenter]

He's factually challenged. That's a nice way of saying he's a liar.

Then post the facts.

 

[boedicca]

No, it isnt.
I knew a thread liek this would smoke out the real statist assholes. You rose right to the bait.
There's that "no person deprived of life liberty or property withouut due process" thing you keep forgetting. Getting arrested is not a conviction. Getting arrested is not due process. I could arrest you right now for impersonating a police officer.

The next time you are at the bank deposit 10k cash in your account and watch what happens.

The police have to apply to the courts in order to keep the assets. A hearing is held. You have the right to challenge. There is your due process.

That isnt a response.
Holding 10k in cash is not money laundering. It is holding 10k in cash.
Police confiscate assets unrelated to the crime and out of proportion to the evidence. Getting them returned is expensive and time consuming and often out of the range of the average person.

It's very telling that our government now considers holding cash "suspicous".

They'd much rather that we all keep every single penny as an electronic asset, which makes money easier to seize and control.

The G20 have basically rigged the game so that bank deposits are no longer money:


Large deposits at banks are no longer money, as this legislation will formally push them down through the capital structure to a position of material capital risk in any "failing" institution. In our last financial crisis, deposits were de facto guaranteed by the state, but from November 16th holders of large-scale deposits will be, both de facto and de jure, just another creditor squabbling over their share of the assets of a failed bank.

Interestingly, HM Treasury uses the word ‘failing’ rather than "failed" in its consultation document and investors could find their large deposits frozen for a prolonged period in any "failing" institution while the courts unpick the capital structure and decide exactly where any losses should fall.

If we have another Lehman Brothers collapse, large-scale depositors could find themselves in the courts for years before final adjudication on the scale of their losses could be established. During this period would this illiquid asset, formerly called a deposit and now subject to an unknown capital loss, be considered money? Clearly it would not, as its illiquidity and likely decline in nominal value would make it unacceptable as a medium of exchange....

Russell Napier Declares November 16 2014 The Day Money Dies Zero Hedge