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.
I bet NMO will have something to say about it. There are a lot of interesting comments in the comments section too.
Quote:
On Monday, following the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program announced that it would defer all equitable sharing payments for forfeitures, both civil and criminal, to state, local, and tribal partners for the foreseeable future. Following the DOJ’s announcement, the International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a statement, saying that the decision was “detrimental to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.”
So they're deferring sharing payments. Does that mean DOJ keeps it for themselves?
In a just system, any amounts seized that are in excess of the maximum fine for the crime in which someone is charged of should be returned immediately. For example if $1,000,000 is seized and the maximum fine for the crime is $25,000 then $975,000 should be returned immediately. The strategy of denying the accused funds to hire competent council is absolutely unjust.
The remainder of seized funds should be held in trust. If a conviction occurs it should be applied to the fine. If a conviction does not occur, it should be returned as soon as administratively feasible after an acquittal or charges are dropped.
Asset forfeiture (AF) has been a fundamental part of prosecutions since the mob wars; RICO is based on it. The theory is that criminals should not profit from their crimes. So ill-gotten gains (IGG, in FedSpeak) are indicted, along with the the suspect.
Once the suspect pleads guilty (or is convicted at trial) the IGG gets tried. If the suspects surrenders it, or the jury finds the asset to be proceeds of an offense, it is forfeited to the Treasury's general fund (after paying for the investigative costs and victim restitution) and the assets are used to fund the government's general obligations.
AF sharing was a way to pay the local and state governments for all the manpower (or other expenses) they dedicated to the investigation. For years the feds have used local and state law enforcement officers as force multipliers in things like organized crime, healthcare fraud and terrorism investigations.
I ran a unit that cost taxpayers about five million a year, and we seized a little over six billion in the three years I ran it - and it had absolutely nothing to do with drug or narcotics investigations. It was a white collar crime outfit. So it is good for taxpayers.
If the feds stop sharing the AF, the locals will stop supplying cops and support. It's that simple.
I ran a unit that cost taxpayers about five million a year, and we seized a little over six billion in the three years I ran it - and it had absolutely nothing to do with drug or narcotics investigations. It was a white collar crime outfit. So it is good for taxpayers.
If the feds stop sharing the AF, the locals will stop supplying cops and support. It's that simple.
It's not that simple. I'm sure while you were busy busting white collar criminals, you were too busy to note how corrupt the state and local officials had become. Seizing six billion from white collar criminals doesn't even come close to justifying the theft and carnage being dealt to regular citizens.
I don't care if you had raked in six hundred billion, it still would not justify giving law enforcement agencies financial incentive to turn citizens into criminals on a wholesale level, or to unjustly seize vehicles and homes just for profit, which is what asset forfeiture has become.
Asset forfeiture (AF) has been a fundamental part of prosecutions since the mob wars; RICO is based on it. The theory is that criminals should not profit from their crimes. So ill-gotten gains (IGG, in FedSpeak) are indicted, along with the the suspect.
Once the suspect pleads guilty (or is convicted at trial) the IGG gets tried. If the suspects surrenders it, or the jury finds the asset to be proceeds of an offense, it is forfeited to the Treasury's general fund (after paying for the investigative costs and victim restitution) and the assets are used to fund the government's general obligations.
AF sharing was a way to pay the local and state governments for all the manpower (or other expenses) they dedicated to the investigation. For years the feds have used local and state law enforcement officers as force multipliers in things like organized crime, healthcare fraud and terrorism investigations.
I ran a unit that cost taxpayers about five million a year, and we seized a little over six billion in the three years I ran it - and it had absolutely nothing to do with drug or narcotics investigations. It was a white collar crime outfit. So it is good for taxpayers.
If the feds stop sharing the AF, the locals will stop supplying cops and support. It's that simple.
I don't think anyone has a problem with the forfeiture of assets after a conviction or even the restriction of use of assets during an ongoing prosecution. It's the abusive asset forfeiture in cases where a crime isn't ever prosecuted that is disgusting.
Asset forfeiture abuse cannot be tolerated in a free society, regardless of how much "good" the (stolen) funds do for the relevant government agencies.
It's not that simple. I'm sure while you were busy busting white collar criminals, you were too busy to note how corrupt the state and local officials had become. Seizing six billion from white collar criminals doesn't even come close to justifying the theft and carnage being dealt to regular citizens.
I don't care if you had raked in six hundred billion, it still would not justify giving law enforcement agencies financial incentive to turn citizens into criminals on a wholesale level, or to unjustly seize vehicles and homes just for profit, which is what asset forfeiture has become.
I'm not familiar with what you are alleging. The federal judge is the one who has the say on (a) seizing the asset, and (b) forfeiting it - after a court procedure. The cops just carry it out. (I am not at all familiar with state asset forfeiture programs, though I know some states have them.)
I have never been a big fan of the feds 'force multiplying' by co-opting local departments for manpower and expense sharing. We never used them.
Perhaps this DOJ move to halt AF sharing will do away with some of the abuses you are aware of. Conversely, if local departments start relying more on state forfeiture programs, things may get worse...?
As to asset forfeiture in lieu of prosecution (emathias's point), I've seen Main Justice do that a few times. I think it stinks. Rich or powerful people or companies simply buy their way out of a prosecution. When they tried to do it in one of my cases, I insisted the company take two felonies - and made a few enemies doing it. But in the end they pled guilty to the crimes we caught them doing. And they forfeited the IGG to the court.
Keep in mind, courts use AF as the mechanism by which victims get restitution. Many of Bernie Madoff's victims lost their all of their life's savings, and it was AF that got them some of that back.
So doing away with the tool may not be the solution to abuses downstream...
I'm not familiar with what you are alleging. The federal judge is the one who has the say on (a) seizing the asset, and (b) forfeiting it - after a court procedure. The cops just carry it out. (I am not at all familiar with state asset forfeiture programs, though I know some states have them.)
I have never been a big fan of the feds 'force multiplying' by co-opting local departments for manpower and expense sharing. We never used them.
Perhaps this DOJ move to halt AF sharing will do away with some of the abuses you are aware of. Conversely, if local departments start relying more on state forfeiture programs, things may get worse...?
As to asset forfeiture in lieu of prosecution (emathias's point), I've seen Main Justice do that a few times. I think it stinks. Rich or powerful people or companies simply buy their way out of a prosecution. When they tried to do it in one of my cases, I insisted the company take two felonies - and made a few enemies doing it. But in the end they pled guilty to the crimes we caught them doing. And they forfeited the IGG to the court.
Keep in mind, courts use AF as the mechanism by which victims get restitution. Many of Bernie Madoff's victims lost their all of their life's savings, and it was AF that got them some of that back.
So doing away with the tool may not be the solution to abuses downstream...
You make some good points. Maybe your unit worked in a just manner, but in my experience government, at all levels, is mostly corrupt. It seems AF laws, at any government level, encourages corruption. Checks and balances no longer work to keep the corruption out, because Mr. Check is corrupt, and so is Mr. Balance.
I didn't even consider the distinction between federal and state AF laws. What I do know about, because I was told this directly from the agent in charge, is a case in Oklahoma. Someone who lived not far from me in a paid-for house was caught with one (1) mj plant growing in his back yard. The agent just flat told me he will lose his house. He went on to explain that money from seized assets goes directly to their department to buy them vests, guns, cars, etc., so they are quite keen on making such busts.
So while he was at least honest about it, the bottom line is that justice holds no importance. In my opinion, anyone who thinks justice was served by the government stealing someone's paid-for house because one plant was found growing in or near it is also corrupt.
That is what the AF laws have been mangled into, and apparently the DOJ knows it. I just wish there was a way to stop it at the state level too. Wait a minute, there is! STOP THE DAMN WAR ON DRUGS!!!
So DOJ isn't sharing, but forfeiture is still happening.
Doesn't sound like a victory in the war against the war on drugs to me as the title of the thread suggests.
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.
