Talk:Asset forfeiture

Comments

I have taken some info that I believe was wrongly included in the article about Search and seizure and added to this article, removing one bit of POV (see below). It still needs serious work as their is lots of info on this very controversial subject that can be added. Some areas this article should probably cover include:

• The legal fiction of claiming the item to be forfeited as having responsibility in committing the crime it was used in.
• Types of crimes in which it has been often used in such as solicitation of prostitution, drug related crime, organized crime, etc.
• The arguments the forfeiture is a form of unjust punishment of owner since a crime need not be generally proven by authorities to forfeit items claimed to have been used in the crime.
• The argument that forfeiture has been often abused due to the significant financial benefits for authorities.
• Claims by supporters of asset forfeiture that the current laws regarding forfeiture provide adequate protection against abuse.
• The various reform laws passed by congress and among the states.
• Arguments for additional reform laws or improvements of current reform laws.
• The history of asset forfeiture in from old Europe to current times.
• Their are some prominent forfeiture cases, including some controversial ones that can be mentioned too.

I removed the following from the moved text as it was POV:

"confiscation as a tool by which the government can steal their property under drug laws are never formally charged with any crime. [1] [2]"

If it is reworded to be NPOV it could be added back. --Cab88 12:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any diffrence between stealing and confisticating? In both cases the property is taken without the concent of the possesor/owner. Zarutian 13:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When you confiscate a thing you have some kind of right or authority backing you up. When you steal a thing there is nothing official backing you. It is somewhat like the difference between a pirate and a privateer. Ken McE (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

When the judiciary forfeits a surety bail bond, the court shall order the underwriting insurance company pay the face-amount of the surety bail bond. --Sponsion (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A citation is needed for the 80% of cases not having criminal charges. I'm not familiar with how to add citations, so I will put it here and hope a Wiki expert edits the main article. The ISIL has a pamphlet ([3]) that mentions this figure. It in turn cites the Pittsburgh Press for its source. It also gives sources for some other figures in this article that need citations even though they are not flagged as such. For example, it claims that the Washington Times reported the figure mentioned in this article regarding the sum total of assets controlled by the US Marshalls Service. As for stealing vs. confiscated, I've heard it claimed that confiscated property is something that is taken away temporarily and will be returned once whatever problem there is becomes resolved. For example, if I confiscate my child's xBox for bad behavior then eventually I give it back unless he becomes a really bad boy. That is in contrast to a burglar who just takes things unconditionally, permanently. One could make the case that confiscation is a de facto theft if it is done with the explicit intent to take permanent possession, knowing that the true owner will be unable to resolve the issue required to receive the property back. For example, if I were to confiscate my child's xBox (so I can play with it) until such time as he gets a 4.0 GPA despite knowing he has a learning disability then that could be construed as de facto theft. I think a NPOV statement would be that critics of the system note the civil asset forfeiture laws provide a monetary incentive for law enforcement agencies to find ways to use confiscation in ways that are de facto theft rather than to use confiscation in ways that deter crime. (For one example, contrast to the incentivization of if the procedes had to be donated to charities unrelated to law enforcement rather than put in the budgets of the very same law enforcement agencies taking the property.) -David Mooter, March 5, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.10.192 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to Edit Paragraph 3 Under Abuse and Controversy

Just wanted to add that the third paragraph under abuse and controversy needs editing. The vast majority of it is opinion, in fact the first sentence is a command to the readers.

"When people are convicted of crime then punish all offenders equally within the guidelines of a predetermined penalty. Forfeiture creates disturbing imbalances when attaching punishment to crime. Criminals who have assets are treated very differently to criminals who have nothing. Forfeiture targets assets not criminals and it does not prevent crime. Did the forfeiture of Prophet's home (http://www.simonprophet.com.) send out a clear message to drug gangsters? The police statistics in South Africa indicate that the civil forfeiture of his home actually promoted the particular drug crime of which he was accused by a staggering 7 500% increase within 4 years" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.214.194 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Asset forfeiture vs Confiscation

Is there enough difference to keep two articles (Confiscation)? Сергей Олегович (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

External links POV

The external links section of this article appears on its face to be a collection of anti-forfeiture screeds. Probably all of these links should be deleted, and any new links should be carefully considered as per the criteria of Wikipedia:External links. Objections?--Dbratland (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Asset forfeiture vs. Disgorgement

Disgorgement sounds like a special case of asset forfeiture or a term used in certain jurisdictions but neither article mentions the other. Whether a merge is proper or not, perhaps someone familiar with the subject could explain the differences and expand on, and give context to, when "disgorgement" is used. — Magnus Holmgren (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that closely related, if I'm reading right: disgorgement affects the proceeds of a crime, forfeiture the purported tools of a crime. —Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Abuses and controversy section

The section Entitled "abuses and controversy" speaks with authority but includes not one citation. While the claims made there are plausible many of them would not be unambiguous facts even if they were true; their relevance depends entirely on differences of opinion about things like jurisdiction, law enforcement funding, due process, etc. As such it's almost gbald editorializing to write such a lengthy, nuanced section without any citations at all. I'm deleting it; if you wrote it, please simply find some citations rather than starting some reposting/flame war or huffing that you've been in law enforcement for fifteen years or some such. I understand that opinions are strong and that some expertise is difficult to cite, but writing a section on largely subjective topic matter requires some citations when you're creating encyclopedic rather than journalistic or editorial content. It's not all about the citations, but some content is not very helpful or appropriate without them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.134.91 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 October 2011‎

no worries, people interested in the abuses and controversy of asset forfeiture can read all about it in the revision unaffected by user 99.173.134.91, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asset_forfeiture&oldid=456622051 76.119.30.87 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved from article as unsourced

I'm guessing that much of this can easily be sourced. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Abuses and controversy

The widespread use of such proceedings, which usually involve assertion of in rem jurisdiction, has also brought many complaints about their misuse to deprive innocent persons of their lawful property. Without a requirement to prove that a crime had been committed, much less committed by the party in possession of the property, it has become too easy for law enforcement personnel to seize and prosecutors to forfeit properties worth as much as $20,000 because it will likely cost the person that much in legal fees to recover them. This is because in such cases the courts no longer abide by the old common law rule that the party in possession is to be presumed the lawful owner unless it is proved otherwise. Thus, a person carrying $6,000 in cash to a vehicle auction where the auctioneer will only take cash may be stopped and his cash seized because it is presumed only a drug dealer would have or carry that much cash.

The problem is exacerbated by the laws and rules that allow the agencies seizing the assets to keep the money for their operations, including the funding of salaries and promotions, the purchase of vehicles and equipment, and discretionary spending. In addition, there are often not strict controls on how the assets are liquidated, and law enforcement agents are discovered to have acquired forfeited assets, such as vehicles, boats, and other luxury items, without having paid full market value for them, or even anything at all. There have even been complaints about law enforcement officers seizing cash and other assets under the pretext of forfeiture and then just keeping them without reporting the seizure.

Another potential abuse involves the timing of police seizures. The police cannot auction seized illegal drugs, but using asset forfeiture they can keep or auction lawful goods purchased with money from the sale of illegal drugs. If the police wait to arrest a suspect they believe to be in possession of illegal drugs until after he or she has sold them, they stand to gain more from asset forfeiture than if they effect an immediate arrest while the suspect is still in possession of the illegal drugs. In this way, police forces are perversely discouraged to stop the sale of illegal drugs, so that the value of these drugs may be converted through unlawful sales into property the police can make use of.

The opportunity of forfeiture also gives the police an incentive to exert political influence, in their official capacity and through their unions, against liberalization of drug laws.

In South Africa the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 is inconsistent with section 25(1) of the South African Bill of Rights. Even before a person has committed a crime, the right of every person to own property is severely derogated by civil forfeiture. According to section 36(1), civil rights may be derogated only to the extent that the derogation is reasonable and justifiable.