Minnesota gets Civil Forfeiture right

[The Kernel]

No, they will also get hit with criminal charges. Do you see the parallel here?

No they won't and who would you charge anyway? A bank is not a person and people in the AML department are not criminally liable for their actions unless they are stupid enough to demonstrate criminal intent which coming up with bullshit reasons for an AML determination doesn't qualify for. Jesus what planet do you live on?

[White Haven]

Who in the almighty force of blue fucknosery is talking about banks other than you? The entire issue revolves around police seizures of assets.

[Thanas]

No, they will also get hit with criminal charges. Do you see the parallel here?

No they won't and who would you charge anyway? A bank is not a person and people in the AML department are not criminally liable for their actions unless they are stupid enough to demonstrate criminal intent which coming up with bullshit reasons for an AML determination doesn't qualify for. Jesus what planet do you live on?

Hey asshole, I am living on a planet and more specifically, a nation, where a bank manager, if he knowingly withhelds funds for no reason at all, is guilty of embezzlement. Jesus, on what magic planet do you live where bank managers are completely immune to criminal law?

If you find a single court decision by a German criminal court that says a bank manager can withhold funds when he knows that he has no rights to them is innocent of embezzlement then by all means, post it. Otherwise, go fuck yourself and the magic horse you came into the room on.

[Mr Bean]

Hey asshole, I am living on a planet and more specifically, a nation, where a bank manager, if he knowingly withhelds funds for no reason at all, is guilty of embezzlement. Jesus, on what magic planet do you live where bank managers are completely immune to criminal law?

Rethink that statement when looking at the past ten years of America V our Banking sector

[Thanas]

Thankfully, he made that statement about German banks, not US banks.

[The Kernel]

Who in the almighty force of blue fucknosery is talking about banks other than you? The entire issue revolves around police seizures of assets.

That's exactly the point that everyone is missing. This is about CIVIL FORFEITURE. In civil court the government, corporations and individuals are the SAME THING.

[The Kernel]

Thankfully, he made that statement about German banks, not US banks.

It's not embezzlement unless an individual at the bank takes the money for himself now is it? Just as the cops would only personally be in trouble when they started taking it for themselves, keeping it in the evidence locker is purely ambiguous.

You don't realize that international law covers all banks for the purposes of money laundering do you? Banks control money across the borders of countries and as such international law plays the defining role when it comes to money laundering. Isn't it enough that someone who has worked in the payments space for a decade tells you that you are wrong? You really want me to prove it to you?

How about this: rather than me giving you a lecture on the finer points of international money laundering legislation why don't you instead concentrate on the relevant point I was making: that a bank can take defacto ownership of your property and your remedy would be in civil not criminal court. Even if they might have technically broken criminal law the chances of you getting that prosecuted is insignificant as how are you going to prove that they did so with malice? Same problem exists when it comes to the police in these cases: what they are doing is technically illegal but good luck proving it in criminal court where the burden of proof is extremely high.

[TheFeniX]

Because right now there is no barrier at all and checks and balances are the foundation of government.

There is a barrier, it's just hilariously low and the onus is on the accused, not the accusor. Changing it to "probable cause" doesn't do anything because they are already using any bullshit excuse as probable cause.

in what situation where assets should be seized are criminal charges not at hand?

Organized crime and drug trafficking of course.

You're fucking with me, aren't you? Those. are. crimes. Crimes that should lead to criminal charges. If you can't nail criminals in criminal court: too. fucking. bad.

And this isn't about whether or not they need to prove it in a criminal court, you can still file a civil action. Or did you forget that OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but had all of his money taken in a civil suit? Whether you like civil law or not is a separate issue.

Yea, that was stupid. I don't care how guilty OJ was, that was an abuse of the civil court system: relying on lowered burden of guilt to nail him after the fact.

You are using the term "guilty" where it is not relevant. Civil cases are not criminal cases.

And by what right does the government use this system to deprive people of property? If there's no guilt, then there's no crime committed.

I'm suggesting having to demonstrate probable cause for the seized assets being proceeds of a crime, probably cause for the search is a totally different thing.

There's no fucking crime. That's the entire God damned point. The cops say "Your stuff is now our stuff because, we can't prove anything, but we think it was earned via crime." They already do what you're talking about. They say shit like "lots of people in this areas come through with money, some of them deal drugs. Wrong time, wrong place: your shit is mine now."

Once again, what does your solution fix? Not a fucking thing. This legislation on the other hand will lower the robbery rate in at least one state.

[Beowulf]

The sad thing? Local cops already have a dodge around this: They get a Fed to do the actual forfeiture. The feds aren't bound by state law. And then the Feds hand back most of the proceeds to the local cops.

[The Kernel]

You're fucking with me, aren't you? Those. are. crimes. Crimes that should lead to criminal charges. If you can't nail criminals in criminal court: too. fucking. bad.

You don't understand the difference between criminal and civil actions do you? The two are entirely different.

Yea, that was stupid. I don't care how guilty OJ was, that was an abuse of the civil court system: relying on lowered burden of guilt to nail him after the fact.

It's not about lowering the burden of proof dingus. The burden of proof in civil court has always been the same.

And by what right does the government use this system to deprive people of property? If there's no guilt, then there's no crime committed.

By the same rights that give private citizens the right to file civil actions. If I have a mobster shaking me down for protection money I am well within my rights to sue him to get that money back and I don't need him to be convicted for me to do so. The government shouldn't get special treatment but neither should they be penalized anymore than any other party.

There's no fucking crime. That's the entire God damned point. The cops say "Your stuff is now our stuff because, we can't prove anything, but we think it was earned via crime." They already do what you're talking about. They say shit like "lots of people in this areas come through with money, some of them deal drugs. Wrong time, wrong place: your shit is mine now."

Once again, what does your solution fix? Not a fucking thing. This legislation on the other hand will lower the robbery rate in at least one state.

You keep using words like "guilt" and "crime" as though they mean anything in this context. There's a reason why almost every civilized country has a distinction between criminal and civil court and there's a VERY good reason why the burden of proof standards are different. If you don't like it fine, but I don't hear you offering a viable alternative.

[Thanas]

Thankfully, he made that statement about German banks, not US banks.

It's not embezzlement unless an individual at the bank takes the money for himself now is it? Just as the cops would only personally be in trouble when they started taking it for themselves, keeping it in the evidence locker is purely ambiguous.

No, embezzlement does not have to be for yourself, it can be on behalf of another third party. Namely in this case the bank, which gets the benefit of having money.

You don't realize that international law covers all banks for the purposes of money laundering do you? Banks control money across the borders of countries and as such international law plays the defining role when it comes to money laundering. Isn't it enough that someone who has worked in the payments space for a decade tells you that you are wrong? You really want me to prove it to you?

And isn't it enough that I as a lawyer tell you that I could very much prosecute somebody for withholding money intentionally when they know they got no right and that there is no legiiimate purpose to it?

How about this: rather than me giving you a lecture on the finer points of international money laundering legislation why don't you instead concentrate on the relevant point I was making: that a bank can take defacto ownership of your property and your remedy would be in civil not criminal court. Even if they might have technically broken criminal law the chances of you getting that prosecuted is insignificant as how are you going to prove that they did so with malice?

Luckily I don't need to prove malice, all I need to prove is that they took my money without having any justification and that they knew about that lack of justification.

[The Kernel]

If you could prove that then you would have just as good of a case for prosecuting the police officers. You have just admitted that it's the same thing.

[Thanas]

If you could prove that then you would have just as good of a case for prosecuting the police officers. You have just admitted that it's the same thing.

Of course it fucking is and I have never claimed otherwise. You are the one going "they can totally hold your money and nothing will ever happen to them".