Does anyone here happen to know if China has an equivalent to the practice of civil forfeiture?
[deleted]
U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
221–230 of 258 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#222>> I don’t feel like much of a man, because I don’t have a vehicle.
A bit off topic but someone should tell this guy that a LR doesn't make you more of a man, especially if you buy it using the life insurance of your father. The best for him would be to actually sell the LR(if he ever gets it back), buy car that he can afford and use the rest of the money to put his life in order.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#223Feel like I should be hosting a reddit ama for this subject. 3x civil forfeiture victim chiming in. 3k 10k 48k Never charged with a crime. What would you like to know LOL.
Out of curiosity, why were you carrying that much cash anyway?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)
Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
From the article:
> "calculated ignorance of illegal
> activity is not an acceptable excuse"
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#225Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation). That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost…
Incorrect application of civil forfeiture laws is one very good reason to have a digital currency. I'm not justifying its use for any illicit purposes but its pretty hard for a cryptocurrency to be seized during a traffic stop.
> its pretty hard for a cryptocurrency to be seized during a traffic stop.
If one became popular, what magic would prevent it from being added to the same software they use to extract other information from phones?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#226Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil forfeiture?
"the end justifies the means"
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
From the article: > "calculated ignorance of illegal > activity is not an acceptable excuse" I.e. the court's argument is that he was perfectly aware that he was building these for drug cartels. If we take that judgement at face value I don't see the problem with this. You don't get to wink wink nudge nudge your way out of being a knowing accomplice to a crime.
By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons?
Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no?
It's a slippery slope..
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil forfeiture cases are argued before the judiciary branch. The power is not unfettered.
They're usually argued against the actual item being seized, not the owner of the item. Since a pile of money can't really hire an attorney, there's no argument to the contrary, and the state wins.
That's not how it works.
Anyone can put in a claim on the property (most commonly the person that it was seized from) and argue in front of a court (with a lawyer) that they are the rightful owner.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > "calculated ignorance of illegal > activity is not an acceptable excuse" I.e. the court's argument is that he was perfectly aware that he was building these for drug cartels. If we take that judgement at face value I don't see the problem with this. You don't get to wink wink nudge nudge your way out of being a knowing accomplice to a crime.
By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons? Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no? It's a slippery slope..
A better analogy is an FFL knowingly selling firearms to cartel members, which is already illegal.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.
I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate. I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.
More than $10k in cash is considered "evidence of criminal activity" in many jurisdictions.
It's one thing to have a few bank envelopes with $10k in cash and a withdrawal receipt in a zip lock bag or something that's pretty obviously non-criminal. It's another thing to get pulled over in a $90/day rental with $15k hidden under a blanket in the trunk. The latter will almost always end up getting seized.