Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, so GUILTY until proven innocent, that's what you're saying.
Doesn't that seem to go against the whole INNOCENT until proven guilty?
Go through an airport with over 10k without reporting it and see what happens. How long have you been complaining about that law which has been in effect like forever. They seized Madoff's assets before his trial as well. I bet you liked that one though.
The link was broken. It doesn't matter if he was charged with a crime or not. He had a suspicious amount of cash on him and lied about it. Go through an airport with more than 10k on you and don't tell the proper authorities that you have it. It will be seized without you being charged with a crime.
You have no idea if he lied and he is under NO obligation to explain the money to anyone.
You seemed to have been able to dismiss the article even though you now claim the link was broken.
Another over the top response. The guy had 50 grand in a suitcase. He didn't win that at a casino. They don't pay you in travelers checks. The seizure wasn't FOR speeding BTW. It was what got the guy busted. If you speed and you get pulled over with a kilo of coke, you will be arrested for the coke, not the speeding. As far as them keeping it, it has to be proven that it's illegal money. Same thing if you board a plane with more than 10k and don't report that you have it, it can be seized as well until it's proven it's not illegal money.
So just because he had a lot of cash he was obviously guilty of something so just kiss the cash goodbye aye? It doesn't even take an amount of cash like that for LE to just seize it out of hand either. It's just assumed,are amount of ash your a big time dealer, smler amount your just a street slinger. But still an obvious drug dealer either way.
And no, the confiscating agency doesn't have to nor will they return seized cash. Oh you can show proof of how you got the cash, but that doesn't mean that proof will be accepted. And it won't be. So you have to go in front of a judge, and who do you think he:she is going to back up? This seizure policy has been out of control for far to long. It is downright criminal and needs to be stopped. Sessions isnt doing anything that hasn't been done with every new administration. But I have no problem with the buck stopping with him.
Not only stopping but all of it being ended. The burden of proof should be on the government. Not the individual. This seizure policy is just insane. Anyone carrying above pocket cash is subject to having it seized. It does encourage LE corruption and cops are pocketing otc of seized cash. Even if whoever they took it from kicks up a fuss all a cop has to do is deny having took it. It's cash. No way to track it. Carrying cash shouldn't have such consequences attached. Not without drugs being present as well at the time it's seized.
Civil forfeiture needs to be banned completely. It should be prohibited until someone has been found guilty of a crime.
Grandma driving through Oklahoma to visit her grandkids shouldn't have her money seized until she has been found guilty of laundering or drug distribution.
Go through an airport with over 10k without reporting it and see what happens. How long have you been complaining about that law which has been in effect like forever. They seized Madoff's assets before his trial as well. I bet you liked that one though.
I'm pretty darn sure they had a reason to seize Bernie's assets. What a horrible comparison.
I'm pretty darn sure they had a reason to seize Bernie's assets. What a horrible comparison.
It still happened before trial and well before conviction. It actually happened without any indictment at all and was not linked to Bernie's later indictment.
Obviously it was done to prevent him liquidating and hiding his assets (not to mention using them for his defense), but it was absolutely 100% a use of civil forfeiture without an indictment.
Of the $2.5B recovered for victims, only $300M came from criminal forfeiture (forfeiture based on a criminal indictment and conviction). If civil forfeiture did not exist, that $2B would have remained under the control (but not possession) of Madoff. (The funds were mostly controlled by BLMIS, which obviously never had a criminal conviction levied against it, as it is a company and not a person. You can only use civil forfeiture, not criminal forfeiture, to recover from a company in that manner because the company can only receive a civil charge, not a criminal charge.)
It's a horrible practice. It's been going on since at least 1989. Ffwd to NOW.....forget the blame-game for the past (there's plenty to go around, BOTH parties). But Sessions and trump WANT TO EXPAND IT. Do you get that...they want to have MORE of it.
Here's a 2017 article that includes trump's own words on it (though as usual he probably didn't understand the issue).
Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989. Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.
That number is rather misleading as it includes $1.7B from BLMIS, $1.2B from Toyota, as well a part of the $13B seized from JP Chase Morgan over 4 years.
No he wasn't. But he is the head of it NOW. And he wants to EXPAND forfeitures NOW. That's what this thread is about....NOW. Not 2014, not Obama, not Hillary.
I'd say, nice deflection attempt, but it really was rather lame.
No deflection, stating the obvious since it's been going on longer than sessions has been there....
And it's obvious that you don't care about the past....it was all good then...it was "D" behind the name so, therefore...all is good....
Lame, is not remembering the past, and you have failed....congrats....
Go through an airport with over 10k without reporting it and see what happens. How long have you been complaining about that law which has been in effect like forever. They seized Madoff's assets before his trial as well. I bet you liked that one though.
"In respect to travel, the $10,000 number is again codified in law. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) includes it in its guidelines for traveling with valuables and currency, but only as a requirement to report. The transport of more than $10,000 in American currency isn’t expressly prohibited, but possession of such a sum must be reported to Customs by Americans who travel internationally:"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
