Asset Forfeiture?

[OnePercenter]

He's also full of shit.

Réfuter mon poste canadienne

 

[MrDVS1]

I think seizing the assets of citizens on the mere suspicion of a crime is a travesty and gross violation of due process. These laws need to be scrapped either by the courts or by the legislators.

I think it was the courts that started this crap along with no knock searches and random traffic stops.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Criminals tend to have large amounts of cash.

If you don't want another financial crisis stop voting for Republicans.

 

[MrDVS1]

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?

I think that asset seizure is used far too few times. When it came out how Enron had screwed over every person they did business with, including their own employees, the whole of the upper management should have had 100% of their assets seized and sold to pay those people some of the financial damage to them that management had done.

Before they were convicted of anything? So the government should be able to go up to anyone accused of a crime and take all their stuff?

It is practically impossible to convict individuals involved in white collar crime no matter how clearly guilty they are. We have sent people to their deaths on far less evidence than it takes to get a serious investigation into corporate wrongdoing that all too often end in a negligible fine and no recompense to victims.

There are legions of people doing time for white collar crime. Look at Martha Stewart, who was jailed for basically tlaking to someone.
That dog wont hunt.

Martha Stewart was a dog and pony show, just something to make is look like action was being taken.

 

[mdk]

I think seizing the assets of citizens on the mere suspicion of a crime is a travesty and gross violation of due process. These laws need to be scrapped either by the courts or by the legislators.

I think it was the courts that started this crap along with no knock searches and random traffic stops.

Asset seizures have their roots in the RICO laws and were expanded with The Patriot Act. Sadly, the courts have upheld most instances of these laws. They need to be scrapped but I don't see that happening.

 

[MrDVS1]

There are legions of people doing time for white collar crime. Look at Martha Stewart, who was jailed for basically tlaking to someone.
That dog wont hunt.

Insider trading is now 'basically tlaking to someone.'

Not just talking to someone, talking to an insider. The insider is not supposed to reveal any meaningful information, just the same as lawyers are forbidden to reveal certain information. The job comes with a trust!

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Bullshit. Quote the reg that says I have to prove where the money came from.

 

[boedicca]

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

Criminals tend to have large amounts of cash.

If you don't want another financial crisis stop voting for Republicans.

Oh blah blah blah Booooshhhh blah blah blah. You are a moron.

 

[Rozman]

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.

And you have to pay for an attorney to make your case and probably court fees...

 

[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.

And you have to pay for an attorney to make your case and probably court fees...

Which may end up being mroe than the money that was seized. In which case why bother?

 

[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.

And you have to pay for an attorney to make your case and probably court fees...

Which may end up being mroe than the money that was seized. In which case why bother?

And that's the calculus.

I'll also note that OneBrainCell makes the logically flawed insinuation that because criminals hold large amounts of cash, then everyone who holds large amounts of cash must have gained said cash through criminal activity.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Please quote the specific law that makes this so.

 

[kaz]

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?

It's prima facie unconstitutional

 

[martybegan]

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.

You actually like the idea that police can strong arm a person into signing away their property?

What a fascist asshole.

 

[kaz]

Asset forfeiture is a terrible policy which violates due process and is easily abused by corrupt government employees. Like they really need more encouragement....

Sure! Lets help criminals as much as possible.

Once again you show you are an authoritarian leftist, not a liberal. Due process? Constitution? What Constitution?

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Yes, when I also have a hash pipe. The two are not necessarily related.

I know the government is monitoring large cash transactions...and I'm certainly not in favor of that either. But, I can tell you support it, so enjoy your Big Brother's activities

 

[The Rabbi]

And OneBrainCell has left the room, having been thoroughly humiliated by his own ignorance yet again.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

I first became aware of civil asset forfeiture laws when Dean Koontz wrote about it in a novel. That was back in 1993. Even though it was a work of fiction, the scenario set up in Dark Rivers of the Heart was accurate in every detail, and scary. It's the reason that your local sheriff can afford a fully equipped SWAT team and an APC. It's the reason that law enforcement agencies are swimming in oceans of funding all in the name of the "war on drugs". I do support drugs being illegal, but this method of funding is constitutionally repugnant. Few people know about it, and even fewer people understand it doesn't just happen to big, bad drug dealers far far away. Do you have a wayward adult son who hid a kilo in your house? The government can just take your house, conviction or not, and you suddenly become a 3rd party in civil court trying to get your property back. They made it a civil procedure rather than criminal so as to get around the pesky constitution.

It needs to be ended and I hope the people who dreamed it up burn in the hottest part of hell forever.

 

[OnePercenter]

Bullshit. Quote the reg that says I have to prove where the money came from.

FAQs Regarding Reporting Cash Payments of Over 10 000 Form 8300

 

[boedicca]

Bullshit. Quote the reg that says I have to prove where the money came from.

FAQs Regarding Reporting Cash Payments of Over 10 000 Form 8300

I have a policy of not clicking on a link for which the poster has neither the courtesy or the intellectual honesty to provide a summary as to relevance of said link.