Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

planphilly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#11

Post by gammateam »

aswanson wrote: post #5

How was this never challenged constitutionally with violation of due process, at a bare minimum?

Supreme Court has upheld civil asset forfeiture so far

Of course this is based on the arguments presented

And there are plenty of arguments remaining

All it comes down to is that nobody rich enough, and sympathizable enough, has been subject to this yet. No random police department has seized a bank’s property due to suspected association with an unspecified crime.

Gamblers driving with cash and illiquid homeowners are the ones that experience this.

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#12

Post by gammateam »

NPMaxwell wrote: post #2

Key element in the article: "The new Philadelphia DA, Larry Krasner, ran for office as a critic of forfeiture. But even his office admits the practice of law enforcement taking and selling homes will never be completely over. "'We have not suspended all forfeiture, but we have aggressively narrowed the size and scope,' said Krasner spokesperson Ben Waxman. 'You actually have to be convicted and the property has to be…

When I talk to older people, their key distinction presented to other country’s ideologies is the assurance that you own your private property.

They’ll giggle and laugh at their perspective of the Chinese system.

Yet all levels of government in the US can and do arbitrarily take private property with the thinnest due process, if you can even call it that.

Little difference, just whatever you were exposed to the youngest and most impressionable

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#13

Post by tanderson92 »

NPMaxwell wrote: post #2

Key element in the article: "The new Philadelphia DA, Larry Krasner, ran for office as a critic of forfeiture. But even his office admits the practice of law enforcement taking and selling homes will never be completely over. "'We have not suspended all forfeiture, but we have aggressively narrowed the size and scope,' said Krasner spokesperson Ben Waxman. 'You actually have to be convicted and the property has to be…

The title is (intentionally?) sensationalist nonsense since "the Philly DA" is a person not an office, and the analysis is basically entirely about the office under Krasner's predecessors.

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#14

Post by nikanj »

mmanfrin wrote: post #3

Asset seizure is a fucking blight. If a chunk of your budget comes from selling seized property, then you are going to prioritize seizing property. Especially when property can be fucking seized without a conviction .

It's not completely black and white though. In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other lucrative side jobs, invisible crime is easier and more prevalent than ever.

Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from.

Alas, this theoretically decent idea has been completely fucked up in it's execution. But the core idea of asset seizure, namely that obvious proceeds of a crime can be seized even when the crimes were committed in private.

Historically, I believe it was used against people who magically had gained a fortune overnight, without forcing every bank to go through their vaults and count the cash. Bootleggers, too.

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#15

Post by forapurpose »

Important context: A recent batch of city DA's in the U.S. (I know Krasner is one of them but I can't name others off the top of my head) are revolutionizing urban law enforcement. Krasner, for example, is a civil rights attorney who won the DA office on a progressive platform, which IIRC is not dissimilar to the others. It's a revolution, as I said, and of course that means that many vested interests have lost power and many other people will be uncomfortable with the change. There are targets on the DA's backs.

That doesn't mean these DA's shouldn't face scrutiny (they absolutely should), that they can't do things wrong, or that they can't be corrupt. But the context is an important part of this story.

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#16

Post by bdhess »

nikanj wrote: post #14
mmanfrin wrote: post #3

Asset seizure is a fucking blight. If a chunk of your budget comes from selling seized property, then you are going to prioritize seizing property. Especially when property can be fucking seized without a conviction .

It's not completely black and white though. In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other lucrative side jobs, invisible crime is easier and more prevalent than ever. Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've…

> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from.

Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances?

> In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other lucrative side jobs, invisible crime is easier and more prevalent than ever.

In this modern world of internet-connected financial institutions and big data, following large amounts of money through the system is easier and more prevalent than ever.

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#17

Post by forapurpose »

NPMaxwell wrote: post #2

Key element in the article: "The new Philadelphia DA, Larry Krasner, ran for office as a critic of forfeiture. But even his office admits the practice of law enforcement taking and selling homes will never be completely over. "'We have not suspended all forfeiture, but we have aggressively narrowed the size and scope,' said Krasner spokesperson Ben Waxman. 'You actually have to be convicted and the property has to be…

Adding to your quote and to your point, the next sentence in the article also is important:

The office has sold at least one property since Krasner took office ...

My understanding is that the reporter could find only one property sold by the current DA.

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#18

Post by nikanj »

bdhess wrote: post #16
nikanj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not completely black and white though. In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other lucrative side jobs, invisible crime is easier and more prevalent than ever. Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've…

> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from. Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances? > In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade…

>> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from.

> Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances?

That one is a value judgement, and there is no right answer. Personally, I think the system should be biased to discourage crime, even if it's very unlikely you'll get caught. I know others place the value of freedom higher than the value of, well, fairness. I prefer a nation where crime doesn't pay, or if it does, you lose the spoils.

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#19

Post by OpenBSD-empire »

citruspi wrote: post #7

Slightly related, I was reading this[0] over the weekend and it left me incensed. Behind a paywall, so relevant bits > Uri Rafaeli is an 83-year-old engineer and great-grandfather. He never expected the government to treat him like a drug dealer or gang banger. But last year the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a county government could use civil asset forfeiture—the same legal process used by police to confiscate…

The founding fathers tarred and feathered '''officials''' for less than this! WTF happened? Jefferson was right!

Re: Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops

#20

Post by abecedarius »

nikanj wrote: post #18
bdhess wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from. Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances? > In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade…

>> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from. > Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances? That one is a value judgement, and there is no right ans…

Lower probability of conviction can be addressed by increased severity of punishment upon conviction.
Post reply on HN