DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash • Hacker News Board

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#61

Post by l4xecz » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

20yrs_no_equity wrote: post #55

The tighter their grip, the more value will slip thru their fingers into bitcoin.

Yup, although the cost of a procedure such as buying bitcoin in city "A" via lbtc, traveling, selling in city "B" via lbtc will have to weigh the risks of civil forfeiture. If you're running a drug op and paying random people to transport cash, I suspect that a very small percentage of funds will be lost to this BS. Unfortunately it will be the ignorant folks who travel with their life savings in cash to buy cars or retirement homes who will be the most harmed.

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#62

Post by snark42 » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #19

didgeoridoo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Unless you think "due process" == "Because I said so", it is both legally and morally a travesty.

Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; which is not to say that certain applications of it are not deeply problematic, but hyperbole is not helpful in discussing them.

> Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so";

Not at all...

It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across the country.

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#63

Post by digler999 » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #40

senorprogrammer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work. Requiring charges is a very small step in the right direction. I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law. A real improvement is to seize, hold…

> I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work. That's not an inversion of the way "the rule of law" is supposed to work, its an inversion of the way criminal punishment is supposed to work, because of the particular character of criminal sanction. But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't hav…

> in a contested forfeiture

And to "contest" it requires an attorney at about $200/hour. I would say that counts as a "burden" to 99.99% of the population.

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#64

Post by diego_moita » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

From a Latin American perspective, the US deals with corruption in a very interesting way.

* Here in Latin America the police extorts corruption and you know that it is illegal but good luck complaining. In the US they just legalize the extortion.

* Here in Latin America it is illegal to bribe a politician but everyone does it. In the US they just legalize lobbying and corporations financing campaigns.

So, to avoid corruption, the US just makes it legal?

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#65

Post by rosser » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 7:10 PM UTC

diego_moita wrote: post #64

From a Latin American perspective, the US deals with corruption in a very interesting way. * Here in Latin America the police extorts corruption and you know that it is illegal but good luck complaining. In the US they just legalize the extortion. * Here in Latin America it is illegal to bribe a politician but everyone does it. In the US they just legalize lobbying and corporations financing campaigns. So, to avoid c…

Well, by definition, corruption is illegal. So if you make the behavior legal, in specific, defined circumstances, then it's not corruption any more. Magic!

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#66

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 7:23 PM UTC

snark42 wrote: post #62

dragonwriter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; which is not to say that certain applications of it are not deeply problematic, but hyperbole is not helpful in discussing them.

> Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; Not at all... It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across the c…

> It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money."

Except, not, because the government bears the burden of proving that it is drug money, assuming you assert a claim that the funds should not be subject to forfeiture. (If they meet that burden and you wish to keep the money anyway by invoking the innocent owner principal, you have the burden of proving that you were not involved in the illegal conduct that made the money subject to forfeiture or acted to end it as soon as you became aware, though.)

> The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent

No, though there is a legitimate issue that it may be difficult to afford decent representation to do a good job of countering the government's attempt to prove your money guilty if, you know, the government's just seized your life savings.

(This is actually related to the reason I am inclined to think that the right to publicly-provided counsel ought to apply in any legal case pursued against an indigent defendant by the government, whether or not it is a criminal case.)

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#67

Post by dmix » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 7:25 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #46

The easy solution to this (from the perspective of the criminal) is to just move the money via a cryptocurrency (traded for cash privately) and it seems completely idiotic to me that this hasn't occurred yet, there is basically zero risk of LE compromise. I'm also rather surprised that I'm the first person to even mention it here, since this is basically a solved problem.

I'm guessing you've never seen prices on localbitcoins or other trading sites. There is always a big markup for buying bitcoin with cash. It'd be extremely expensive to buy 5k let alone $50-100k. Then cashing out your bitcoin you'd likely losing money again.

Besides the difficulty in finding people who have $50-100k in bitcoin they want to sell then finding another person who wants to buy $50-100k in bitcoin.

The market simply isn't there for this to be practical. There would have to be a big healthy black market here for people both buying and selling BTC for cash. You'd then have to hide this transaction from the DEA/IRS (on both ends A buying -> B selling) rather than just shipping cash from point A->B.

So without a market already in place for this then you're no better off then before.

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#68

Post by Zak » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #40

senorprogrammer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work. Requiring charges is a very small step in the right direction. I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law. A real improvement is to seize, hold…

> I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work. That's not an inversion of the way "the rule of law" is supposed to work, its an inversion of the way criminal punishment is supposed to work, because of the particular character of criminal sanction. But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't hav…

But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists.

It technically isn't, but the intent is to give the government options to punish criminal behavior and criminal organizations without having to meet the same standards of proof or respect the same set of rights they would under criminal law. Traditional civil law deals with breaches of contract and torts where someone has been harmed and needs to be made whole, not the government attempting to maintain order. Civil asset forfeiture is fundamentally "getting a conviction here would be too hard, let's take their stuff instead".

Most people talking about the burden of proof are misusing the term, but the protections guaranteed to a criminal defendant are reduced or absent in civil asset forfeiture. Using civil law in this manner should give us pause, as there are good reasons for the limitations and guarantees of criminal law.

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#69

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #68

dragonwriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work. That's not an inversion of the way "the rule of law" is supposed to work, its an inversion of the way criminal punishment is supposed to work, because of the particular character of criminal sanction. But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't hav…

But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists. It technically isn't, but the intent is to give the government options to punish criminal behavior and criminal organizations without having to meet the same standards of proof or respect the same set of rights they would under criminal law. Traditional civil law deals with breaches of contract and torts wh…

> It technically isn't, but the intent is to give the government options to punish criminal behavior and criminal organizations without having to meet the same standards of proof or respect the same set of rights they would under criminal law.

The behavior at issue (which often is the same behavior covered by tort law) is not the reason for the additional protections of criminal law; the sanctions available under criminal law are the primary reason for the protections.

Re: DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash

#70

Post by Zak » Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

senorprogrammer wrote: post #34

Zak wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the money certainly was, perhaps even most. It is, however a grave injustice when money that is totally legitimate gets seized from innocent people, and some of the people mentioned in the article had strong evidence for their money being from legitimate sources. The fundamental problem is that the standard of proof required is much lower than in criminal law. The legislative remedy some states have started t…

I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work. Requiring charges is a very small step in the right direction. I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law. A real improvement is to seize, hold…

* I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law.*

That could happen, though I think some reformed laws require it to be a felony, while others require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is tied to the crime.