Government takes family's savings away based on allegation

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by kazenatsu, Feb 23, 2022.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another example of civil forfeiture.

    The government can take all of a person's money from their bank accounts, if that person is suspected of a crime. There is no trial, and that person is not even automatically entitled to a hearing about whether it is fair. They have to file a motion to petition for hearing.
    The person might not even know, or sometimes might even never know, what the alleged evidence was against them that was used to justify the seizure of their money.

    video here: Is it legal?: FBI seizes nearly $1 million from family without filing charges
    (but this link is not going to last for long)

    Fox News
    Is it legal? FBI seizes nearly $1 million from family without filing charges
    February 22, 2022
    partial transcript:
    "It's been devestating financially and emotionally. The government has seized not only Carl's money but also money that money that Amy independently earned."
    She was an attorney, she started a workspace company and some of the money was taken from her.
    This action was brought forth by ther United State's Attorney's Office and it's a civil action, so it's different from criminal, and criminal has a higher standard. It's proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal sector. And in the civil, it's preponderance of the evidence. So the United States Attorney files a complaint, and then the defendants have to file answers. And then there's discovery, much like a personal injury case where people have to be deposed and interrogatories and things like that - very very dangerous for somebody who the United State's Attorney says has criminal activity. Now it's different again. It tees them up, unfortunately for possible depositions under oath. And it's really against rule number one in criminal defense that you not give statements. So he's put in a really really tough spot there, when the United States Attorney tries to forfeit. And unfortunately for this individual and many out there, this action for forfeiture can come in the civil context before an indictment, after an indictment, or when no indictment is filed ever. Because it's a lower standard and it's preponderance of the evidence, unlike the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they could still bring forth forfeiture actions with the appropriate nexus (connection) to criminality.
    So for a lot of people, when their assets are taken, they need money to have, you know, fight, to be able to fund an attorney, to be able to fight back. So this puts them in a very precarious position, whether they're innocent or guilty, and this is before any guilt has been proved in a court of law. The very assets they need to defend themselves, they may not be able to get their hands on. So there's a question of whether this is actually fair. You look at this poor family and how their whole world has been turned upside down just to end up in a settlement where they have gotten more than half of their assets back. And then also, when this happens, there is an active intimidation here where they take away all your assets, and then they tell you, oh, you have to defend yourself. Well, how do you defend yourself? You can't afford an attorney now.
    Carl Nelson has denied the allegations against him. The allegations was a whistleblower stepped up and actually went to Jeff Bezos at Amazon, where Carl Nelson was apparently doing some real estate work with them, and said, "Het, this guy is ripping you off. He's scamming you." He denies all of it, but now this family is in limbo for two or three years at his point. What happens next?
    This story is not over yet, because he's still within the statute of limitations for a criminal action to be brought. And these federal investigations they take time. This individual still could have charges brought. And often times when individuals defend these actions in the civil forfeiture or the civil actions for money, they take the stand, they do depositions, and those depositions, those transcripts, go right to the United States Attorney's Office and the prosecuting attorneys to review to determine whether they've opened their mouth and they've admitted to criminal conduct. So it's a very very difficult spot to be in, when you have forfeiture, civil actions, and also a target in a criminal investigation.
    This is becoming an increasingly interesting conversation about cars, bank accounts, safety deposit boxes, all kinds of things being seized before a criminal indictment.​

    There are several issues. One of them is the defendant almost has to give up their Fifth Amendment rights to be able to try to get their money back. (In the US there is a legal presumption that the defendant does not have to say anything, and cannot be forced to say anything that could then be used as evidence of some crime against them)
    Maybe a prosecutor might decide to use this as a strategy to try to force a suspect to give testimony about what they did. That could be unfair.

    Or a defendant might even be hesitant about trying to get their money back or making a complaint, for fear that the prosecutor file charges against them and have them arrested and try to send them to prison in retaliation. The Justice Department gets to keep the money that they seize, so there can be a perverse disincentive.
     
  2. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yeah it’s totally legal. They have been doing it for years. It’s almost like criminal reform is desperately needed in the US.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I can suggest an alternative reform, maybe the government should be able to instead freeze the money and put the money into a temporary holding account, for a set period of time. Where the money does not just automatically get taken and go to the government. There should be some law that if the government wants to freeze the money for more than a certain length of time, it has to go through additional scrutiny, and the owner has to be allowed some fair input and a chance to be able to defend themselves. There should also be protections for larger corporations, so that if the government wants to freeze more than a certain amount of money over a certain limit, it has to be approved by multiple government officials, not just one or two. There should also be accountability, where the government officials who decide to take the money can be held responsible for their actions if it turns out there was not valid reason. Then there needs to be public transparency. Where, after a certain period of time, the evidence that was used to justify the freezing (or eventual taking) of that money must be made publicly available, or available to the defendant. Maybe that is too much to ask.
    Maybe a jury could even be involved if the amount of money is over a certain amount and is held more than a certain amount of time - but again, the defendant should be able to have a chance to hear the alleged evidence against them and have the opportunity to defend themselves in front of the jury before they decide. Kind of like a trial.
     
  4. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Sounds good to me. Except the problem is that there are things that aren’t as easily liquidated. The government can hold onto lots of things like houses, cars, drugs, etc. i think there was even a case where the government held onto shark fins or something like that. How do we stop the confiscation of those?
     

Share This Page