Disgusting Asset Forfiture

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 07:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I am of the mindset that asset forfeiture is theft, unless there is a conviction that merits the seizure of assets that were the gains of committing crime, or necessary for the restitution of a crime.

However, I understand the need and reasons to seize a person's assets during the legal process, and for accounts to be frozen, etc.  It prevents criminals from building a high paid defense, using ill gotten gains, that may never be recovered, as well as preventing criminals from grabbing all their loot and fleeing the Country, etc.

But, should those citizens be found Not Guilty in a Court of Law, they should be entitled to have all of their assets returned, accounts unfrozen, etc.  No questions asked.

I agree with everything in boldface--but what if an innocent person's assets are frozen and he can't get good representation, and so gets convicted?

[Benton]

(07-18-2017, 07:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I am of the mindset that asset forfeiture is theft, unless there is a conviction that merits the seizure of assets that were the gains of committing crime, or necessary for the restitution of a crime.

However, I understand the need and reasons to seize a person's assets during the legal process, and for accounts to be frozen, etc. It prevents criminals from building a high paid defense, using ill gotten gains, that may never be recovered, as well as preventing criminals from grabbing all their loot and fleeing the Country, etc.

But, should those citizens be found Not Guilty in a Court of Law, they should be entitled to have all of their assets returned, accounts unfrozen, etc. No questions asked.

I think most people fall into this line of thinking. Commit a crime in your car, lose the car to help recoup costs.

It boggles my mind how states like Texas get away with law enforcement selling your stuff during the judicial process.

But there's also the disparity with how it's applied. A guy sells pot out of his house and it can get seized; a bank commits millions of dollars in illegal fees and account manipulation, they pay the money back and write the attorney fees off as a business expense.

[Benton]

(07-18-2017, 08:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with everything in boldface--but what if an innocent person's assets are frozen and he can't get good representation, and so gets convicted?

That's an unfortunate aspect of the legal system. But it's a problem you're going to have as long as people are involved.

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 08:36 PM)Benton Wrote: I think most people fall into this line of thinking. Commit a crime in your car, lose the car to help recoup costs.

It boggles my mind how states like Texas get away with law enforcement selling your stuff during the judicial process.

But there's also the disparity with how it's applied. A guy sells pot out of his house and it can get seized; a bank commits millions of dollars in illegal fees and account manipulation, they pay the money back and write the attorney fees off as a business expense.

That REALLY burns me. I don't see why someone, once declared innocent, cannot sue the state for wrongful seizure. Must be state statutes preventing that.

Things won't change until there is a drug dealers lobby in state legislatures.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-18-2017, 08:50 PM)Dill Wrote: That REALLY burns me. I don't see why someone, once declared innocent, cannot sue the state for wrongful seizure. Must be state statutes preventing that.

Things won't change until there is a drug dealers lobby in state legislatures.

I agree, if someone is shown to be innocent, they should be entitled to everything they had.

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2017, 07:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I am of the mindset that asset forfeiture is theft.

Much like taxation.
But, that's another thread.

[xxlt]

(07-18-2017, 04:57 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd say this practice is going to get plenty of support at the federal level. Trump and Sessions have both made it clear: if the government wants your stuff, they're getting your stuff.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-sheriff-asset-forfeiture-texas-234740

From 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/?utm_term=.ed7523887354


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-budget-border-wall-land-acquisition-eminent-domain-2017-3

At least she's getting paid.

Raises an interesting point. If Trump thinks he can personally keep cash and luxury items the government seizes the number of seizures will skyrocket.

There was litigation years ago involving a prosecutor in Northern Kentucky, if I recall correctly. The issue was child support. There was some strange KY law about uncollected child support. The law said if it had been unpaid and the prosecutor's office collected it they could keep it - all of it! Not a percentage and the rest to the custodial parent who was owed the money - the prosecutor's office got to keep it all. The peculiar logic was this would save tax dollars and help fund the prosecutors budgets. But this guy claimed the language of the statute was ambiguous and instead of depositing the money into the county coffers for the prosecutor's office, he put it in his own bank account. "The prosecutor can keep the money" is what he argued the law said. And, if I recall correctly, he ended up indeed keeping all the money.

Any body remember that? I can totally see Donny's lawyers building an argument around that.

[samhain]

(07-19-2017, 08:57 AM)xxlt Wrote: Raises an interesting point. If Trump thinks he can personally keep cash and luxury items the government seizes the number of seizures will skyrocket.

There was litigation years ago involving a prosecutor in Northern Kentucky, if I recall correctly. The issue was child support. There was some strange KY law about uncollected child support. The law said if it had been unpaid and the prosecutor's office collected it they could keep it - all of it! Not a percentage and the rest to the custodial parent who was owed the money - the prosecutor's office got to keep it all. The peculiar logic was this would save tax dollars and help fund the prosecutors budgets. But this guy claimed the language of the statute was ambiguous and instead of depositing the money into the county coffers for the prosecutor's office, he put it in his own bank account. "The prosecutor can keep the money" is what he argued the law said. And, if I recall correctly, he ended up indeed keeping all the money.

Any body remember that? I can totally see Donny's lawyers building an argument around that.

If that's true, then that prosecutor is as big a POS as the deadbeat parent.  

[xxlt]

(07-19-2017, 09:35 AM)samhain Wrote: If that's true, then that prosecutor is as big a POS as the deadbeat parent.  

Absolutely right.

[Dill]

(07-19-2017, 09:35 AM)samhain Wrote: If that's true, then that prosecutor is as big a POS as the deadbeat parent.  

Bigger.