Holy Moly - $3 million in cash found in truck

chanel

Silver Member
Jun 8, 2009
12,098
3,202
98
People's Republic of NJ
New Jersey State Police arrested two California men after troopers found $3 million hidden in a tractor-trailer. Officials believe the money was from drug transactions and was headed for California.

Detectives found a hidden compartment that contained more than a 120 bundles of cash.

Twenty-four-year-old Gildardo Andujo of Hawthorne, Calif., and 25-year-old Edward Ramirez of Southgate, Calif., are charged with conspiracy and money laundering. They're each held on $500,000 bail.

NJ Police Find $3M Hidden In Truck - New Jersey 101.5 FM

Where will the money go? Does the state police get to keep it?
 
Yes, Texas specializes in pulling people over and siezing thier assets. Straight into thier budget.
 
New Jersey State Police arrested two California men after troopers found $3 million hidden in a tractor-trailer. Officials believe the money was from drug transactions and was headed for California.

Detectives found a hidden compartment that contained more than a 120 bundles of cash.

Twenty-four-year-old Gildardo Andujo of Hawthorne, Calif., and 25-year-old Edward Ramirez of Southgate, Calif., are charged with conspiracy and money laundering. They're each held on $500,000 bail.

NJ Police Find $3M Hidden In Truck - New Jersey 101.5 FM

Where will the money go? Does the state police get to keep it?

If I found that money I would have immediately turned in all 1.5 million of it over to the police. You never know who is looking for it.
 
It is a truly BAD IDEA to give the STATE the right to take away your assets until you can PROVE that they were NOT made illegally.

the very idea flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".

It is, I think, a violation of the 5th Amendment

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
 
I've been looking all over for that money...

Last place I would have thought to look, Thanks
 
they should have to have some proof you made it illegally, your family could having given it to you or you could have saved it, won a bet or 50.
 
It is a truly BAD IDEA to give the STATE the right to take away your assets until you can PROVE that they were NOT made illegally.

the very idea flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".

It is, I think, a violation of the 5th Amendment

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Under the law, as it stands now, the police don't have to return your property if you're not convicted.
 
New Jersey State Police arrested two California men after troopers found $3 million hidden in a tractor-trailer. Officials believe the money was from drug transactions and was headed for California.

Detectives found a hidden compartment that contained more than a 120 bundles of cash.

Twenty-four-year-old Gildardo Andujo of Hawthorne, Calif., and 25-year-old Edward Ramirez of Southgate, Calif., are charged with conspiracy and money laundering. They're each held on $500,000 bail.

NJ Police Find $3M Hidden In Truck - New Jersey 101.5 FM

Where will the money go? Does the state police get to keep it?

The first thing they should do is hold a press conference and ask if anyone has misplaced their $3 million.
 
It is a truly BAD IDEA to give the STATE the right to take away your assets until you can PROVE that they were NOT made illegally.

the very idea flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".

It is, I think, a violation of the 5th Amendment

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Uh, the can't just seize anything unless and until you either cop a plea or are found guilty. In cases where money like this is involved a lot of times the DA will tell the suspect that if they don't fight the seizure they will accept it in lieu of further penalty, and of course a judge has to sign off on that.

They don't just steal your shit and maybe you can have it back if you prove your innocent.
 
It is a truly BAD IDEA to give the STATE the right to take away your assets until you can PROVE that they were NOT made illegally.

the very idea flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".

It is, I think, a violation of the 5th Amendment

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Uh, the can't just seize anything unless and until you either cop a plea or are found guilty. In cases where money like this is involved a lot of times the DA will tell the suspect that if they don't fight the seizure they will accept it in lieu of further penalty, and of course a judge has to sign off on that.

They don't just steal your shit and maybe you can have it back if you prove your innocent.

conjob is lying again

Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States
There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases today are civil.[citation needed] In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Before the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000, the government only had to establish probable cause that the property was subject to forfeiture; the owner had to prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it was not. The new law holds the government to the "preponderance of evidence" standard and shifts the burden of proof to the federal government instead of the property owner.[1] The property owner still need not be found guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.
 
It is a truly BAD IDEA to give the STATE the right to take away your assets until you can PROVE that they were NOT made illegally.

the very idea flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".

It is, I think, a violation of the 5th Amendment

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Uh, the can't just seize anything unless and until you either cop a plea or are found guilty. In cases where money like this is involved a lot of times the DA will tell the suspect that if they don't fight the seizure they will accept it in lieu of further penalty, and of course a judge has to sign off on that.

They don't just steal your shit and maybe you can have it back if you prove your innocent.

conjob is lying again

Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States
There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases today are civil.[citation needed] In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Before the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000, the government only had to establish probable cause that the property was subject to forfeiture; the owner had to prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it was not. The new law holds the government to the "preponderance of evidence" standard and shifts the burden of proof to the federal government instead of the property owner.[1] The property owner still need not be found guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

UGH - Sangha = stupid, conhog didn't realize civil forfeiture even existed, someone shoot me for my error.
 
Uh, the can't just seize anything unless and until you either cop a plea or are found guilty. In cases where money like this is involved a lot of times the DA will tell the suspect that if they don't fight the seizure they will accept it in lieu of further penalty, and of course a judge has to sign off on that.

They don't just steal your shit and maybe you can have it back if you prove your innocent.

conjob is lying again

Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States
There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases today are civil.[citation needed] In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Before the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000, the government only had to establish probable cause that the property was subject to forfeiture; the owner had to prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it was not. The new law holds the government to the "preponderance of evidence" standard and shifts the burden of proof to the federal government instead of the property owner.[1] The property owner still need not be found guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

UGH - Sangha = stupid, conhog didn't realize civil forfeiture even existed, someone shoot me for my error.

I guess you skipped over (or read and failed to understand) this

In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender.

Or maybe you don't understand what the word "usually" means
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top