ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th October 2018, 10:02 AM   #41
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,231
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
Do you (or anyone else reading this) have a link to a layman-friendly description of the process? I know essentially nothing of modern British law so I might be making unfair assumptions based on our horribly abusive US asset forfeiture laws.

How on earth are we all supposed to go around being outraged in one direction or the other if you come along and ask sensible questions like that?!
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 10:06 AM   #42
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,173
I once took 10K out the bank. "What are you going to use you the money for?" asked the clerk.

"I'm going to buy a bomb," I replied. There was a moment of silence during which a button might have been pressed.

She said, "I think you might want to reconsider?"

"I'm going to buy a car." I lied. She wrote this down. A fat man appeared from a door to her right and stood watching.

I left with the money and also the knowledge that this level of security makes money laundering and similar crimes almost impossible. So as relates the OP, just ask the woman where the money came from, she will be compelled to tell the truth.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:08 AM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If there were a whole class of people so well practiced and supported at financial crime that they were, with ease and at every turn, able to stay precisely and confidently just beyond the 'reasonable doubt' threshold, then what would be the best way to deal with them?
Leave them alone, obviously. If the state can't prove to a panel of its own citizens, beyond reasonable doubt, that such a person exists and is connected to a specific crime, then the matter should rest there. The accused should go home and resume their life without further state intrusion into their affairs.

If the state can't even convince a grand jury that there's a case to be made before a panel of citizens, then again the suspect should be left alone, and no accusation should be leveled against them.

That's how we should deal with a hypothetical class of people committing hypothetical crimes. We should not deal with them by rolling up to anyone we please, telling them "hypothetically you're a criminal", and demanding that they submit to state intrusion on penalty of criminal charges if they don't comply.

Crime first, then suspects, is the only way to do this. Seriously.

Last edited by theprestige; 10th October 2018 at 11:09 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:21 AM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Suspected?

"Jahangir Hajiyev is the former chairman of the International Bank of Azerbaijan.

He was jailed in 2016 for 15 years after being convicted of being part of a major fraud and embezzlement that saw tens of millions of pounds disappear from the bank. Judges also ordered him to repay $39m."
Then Azerbaijan should present the British Government with credible evidence suitable for building an actual case against the man for committing an actual crime.

This isn't about suspicious sums of money. It's about what we as a society demand from our state. What standard of probable cause do we want our state to use against us? What role do we want warrantless searches to play, in our state's actions against us?

The rule of law means we can't give exceptional treatment to this guy. Whatever standard we set to justify state persecution of this man, we must accept the same standard to justify state persecution of ourselves.

The complaints of the BLM movement come to mind. How many people have been persecuted by the state, not because of any link to specific crimes that actually happened, but because "any car seen leaving a drug-dealing neighborhood is suspicious enough to justify police harassment"? How many black men have been arrested, or killed, not because of a link to any actual crime, but simply because "they looked suspicious"?

That's the bar we're talking about, here. Personally, I think it should be set a bit higher, at both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. And everywhere in between. Because that's where I am, and I want a higher standard governing the relationship between me and the state.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:35 AM   #45
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Leave them alone, obviously. If the state can't prove to a panel of its own citizens, beyond reasonable doubt, that such a person exists and is connected to a specific crime, then the matter should rest there. The accused should go home and resume their life without further state intrusion into their affairs.

If the state can't even convince a grand jury that there's a case to be made before a panel of citizens, then again the suspect should be left alone, and no accusation should be leveled against them.

That's how we should deal with a hypothetical class of people committing hypothetical crimes. We should not deal with them by rolling up to anyone we please, telling them "hypothetically you're a criminal", and demanding that they submit to state intrusion on penalty of criminal charges if they don't comply.

Crime first, then suspects, is the only way to do this. Seriously.
It would probably help if you didn't assume that American law processes are, a) applicable in or comparable to those in the UK, and b) the only way to do things.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 10th October 2018 at 11:36 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:50 AM   #46
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,310
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It would probably help if you didn't assume that American law processes are, a) applicable in or comparable to those in the UK, and b) the only way to do things.
The US law system is based on English common law. Being proven guilty, before having your stuff taken should be a right in any democracy... I guess that's just like my opinion (man). I agreed 100% completely with a theprestige post, whoa.

Edit: although you did get rid of grand juries some time ago as I understand it.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 10th October 2018 at 11:51 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:56 AM   #47
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It would probably help if you didn't assume that American law processes are, a) applicable in or comparable to those in the UK, and b) the only way to do things.
I make no such assumptions. I think that in many cases, the US process is a good way to do things. I think that in some cases, the US process is a better way to do things than the way it's done in some other countries. I think that in this particular case, the UK process is a bad way to do things, and that it compares unfavorably with the way I think things should be done. It may or may not compare unfavorably with how things are actually done in the US, but that isn't actually part of my argument.

I also reject entirely the notion that the way it's done in the UK cannot be compared to the way it's done in the US.

On a related note, do you really think "that's not how we do it in [country]" is a valid argument? Of course that's not how you do it - that's the whole basis for the complaint.

"People should have freedom of speech and assembly."

"That's not how we do it in North Korea."

"Yeah, and how you do it in North Korea is wrong."

Last edited by theprestige; 10th October 2018 at 11:58 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 12:09 PM   #48
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I make no such assumptions. I think that in many cases, the US process is a good way to do things. I think that in some cases, the US process is a better way to do things than the way it's done in some other countries.
When you start talking about grand juries in a UK context, you lose a vast amount of credibility.

Quote:
I think that in this particular case, the UK process is a bad way to do things, and that it compares unfavorably with the way I think things should be done.
With reference to the circular I linked to, what part of the process do you object to?

Last edited by Information Analyst; 10th October 2018 at 12:12 PM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 12:38 PM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
When you start talking about grand juries in a UK context, you lose a vast amount of credibility.
I'm not sure I count it as a loss, if it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 01:26 PM   #50
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,387
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Civil forfeiture - how it should be done?

It shouldn't. /thread.
Or at least, the government has to prove the money was acquired criminally, rather than the citizen has to prove that the money wasn't acquired criminally.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 01:42 PM   #51
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,387
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The husband getting banged up for fraud and embezzlement for 15 years back home in 2016 presumably revealed a lot of evidence.



You should probably read this, which sets out what UWO actually are, and the tests that need to be passed for one to be issued:

Home Office: Circular 003/2018: unexplained wealth orders

Note especially those authorities the powers are limited to, i.e.:

• the National Crime Agency,
• Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs,
• the Financial Conduct Authority,
• the Serious Fraud Office, or
• the Crown Prosecution Service

"It is therefore not available to the wider law enforcement and prosecution community, except by referral to [one of the above]."

So not "the cops" in the sense you seemed to use it.
In other words, in the UK, only some of the cops are allowed to take your money and make you prove it wasn't acquired criminally. This is a slight improvement on the US, where a traffic cop can pull you over and confiscate the cash you are carrying because anybody carrying lots of cash is probably a drug dealer, but not much.

Last edited by CORed; 10th October 2018 at 01:43 PM.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 01:55 PM   #52
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,173
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
In other words, in the UK, only some of the cops are allowed to take your money and make you prove it wasn't acquired criminally. This is a slight improvement on the US, where a traffic cop can pull you over and confiscate the cash you are carrying because anybody carrying lots of cash is probably a drug dealer, but not much.
Any cop can do that here too for amounts over 1K.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 01:56 PM   #53
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,214
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Then Azerbaijan should present the British Government with credible evidence suitable for building an actual case against the man for committing an actual crime.

.. Snip.. .
The government *did* build a case and he *was* found guilty in a court of law, so not sure what you mean.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 01:58 PM   #54
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,387
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If there were a whole class of people so well practiced and supported at financial crime that they were, with ease and at every turn, able to stay precisely and confidently just beyond the 'reasonable doubt' threshold, then what would be the best way to deal with them?
You know what? Criminals (financial or othwerwise) who are good at what they're doing are often able to stay just beyond the "reasonable doubt" threshold. I'm sure we could make a real dent in crime if we did away with all this namby pamby "reasonable doubt" nonsense and just let the cops take their money because they pretty sure they did something or other illegal. Heck, why stop at taking their money? Just let the cops lock them up or shoot them. We'd clean up crime in no time. The innocent people who get their money taken, or get locked up or shot by mistake? Just a bit of unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in the War on Crime.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 04:31 PM   #55
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,736
Due diligence and "know your customer" laws should prohibit one from doing significant business with "politically exposed persons", especially those from countries rife with corruption (such as Azerbaijan), unless they are convinced that the source of their funds is not from corruption or crime. They should also be legally required to report this to financial authorities.

It's better to guard against people buying up prime real estate and other expensive forms of property than acting after the fact.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 04:57 PM   #56
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,231
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
You know what? Criminals (financial or othwerwise) who are good at what they're doing are often able to stay just beyond the "reasonable doubt" threshold. I'm sure we could make a real dent in crime if we did away with all this namby pamby "reasonable doubt" nonsense and just let the cops take their money because they pretty sure they did something or other illegal. Heck, why stop at taking their money? Just let the cops lock them up or shoot them. We'd clean up crime in no time. The innocent people who get their money taken, or get locked up or shot by mistake? Just a bit of unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in the War on Crime.

Does that translate into: "nothing, the principle is more important than any economic or social damage that might be caused"?

Because if that's what you were trying to say, I would probably be pursuaded by your argument.

As it is, with all the sarcasm, I'm minded, against my better judgement, perhaps, to disagree with you.


What is it with the tendancy around here to take questions and assume that they're statements of position? It drives me mental.
__________________
Up the River!

Last edited by 3point14; 10th October 2018 at 04:58 PM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 05:15 PM   #57
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,454
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again... 2.5 billion dollars in assets (and that's the low ball estimate since nobody is actually required document any of this. Some higher estimates put it at over 5 billion. For reference burglers took a mere 3.5 billion from Americans last year) were taken and kept from American citizens last year with no due process and no means of getting it back.

And this is with no process. This is a literally a cop stopping your car, "smelling" pot, searching your car, finding money, and keeping it. Not only are you not convicted or charged there is never any real pretense of you ever being convicted. The Washington Post looked at 400 cases of civil forfeiture across 17 states. Not one person got their money/goods back. Not one person was arrested, charged, or convicted.

And what are describing is the exact same first step we were told to take back when it started over here.

If you want to take that first step and trust it to go no further, go ahead. But the law is the one place where the slippery slope fallacy does not apply.
Because...reasons?

One of the reasons US laws end up a steaming pile of **** is that the laws vary widely even between counties and cities, let alone federal and state. They're then enforced by everybody from closely monitored police departments to scumbag elected sheriffs who often have more power than any other elected official in their county.

While there are obviously political divisions within the United Kingdom, AFAIK, they don't suffer from nearly the kind of the police corruption that we do in the United States.

In any case, the slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy because slippery slopes don't occur. It's a fallacy because it's a ****** way to approach decision-making.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 06:34 PM   #58
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,391
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Civil forfeiture - how it should be done?

It shouldn't. /thread.
This
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 06:48 PM   #59
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,645
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The High Court has ordered her to explain the source of her wealth - and she risks losing her property if she cannot do so.
This seems a ridiculous law. They are demanding that people prove their innocence.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 12:34 AM   #60
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
The US law system is based on English common law. Being proven guilty, before having your stuff taken should be a right in any democracy... I guess that's just like my opinion (man). I agreed 100% completely with a theprestige post, whoa.

Edit: although you did get rid of grand juries some time ago as I understand it.
But this is not and never has been true. This is what civil law is about. I am sure you can think of cases where someone has been found not guilty of a crime and subsequently sued and had assets seized. It is common in fraud cases where it may be undesirable to publicise the fraud but the 'accused' has assets seized.

The state also does something called 'tax', which involves taking assets from persons without any conviction. One is often required to provide certain evidence to justify retention of assets.

There is a general principle that criminals should not profit from their crime. If they do then there has been a harm (tort) to society, therefore there is a perfectly good common law principle for the crown to seek correction of that tort by taking the ill gotten gains.

In this case the husband has been convicted of fraud. His wife has assets in the UK that she admits originate from her husband. She claims that they originate from legitimate business if she can demonstrate to the court e.g. by tax receipts that these profits were obtained through a legitimate business then the courts will allow her to keep her assets. My guess is that no one would argue that a criminal could keep stolen property by just giving it to their spouse and saying she did not commit a crime. (The money from selling stolen goods could be paid in cash into the spouse's account without the spouse being aware avoiding any accusation of handling stolen goods, and with no clear evidence of the source of the cash.)
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 12:42 AM   #61
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
This seems a ridiculous law. They are demanding that people prove their innocence.
No.
She is not being tried for a crime. She is not subject to loss of liberty, or life. This is more equivalent to a tax or civil liability case. There are strict liability situations where one is obliged to prove that e.g. claimed deductibles were actually purchased or that one was not negligent. The crown has presented a case that a harm has been done; that the spouse of a criminal has a large amount of money that there is no apparent source other than crime.

Unlike in the US the state / police have to bring a case before the court, the respondent can defend the case. This is due process.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 02:18 AM   #62
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
One of the reasons US laws end up a steaming pile of **** is that the laws vary widely even between counties and cities, let alone federal and state. They're then enforced by everybody from closely monitored police departments to scumbag elected sheriffs who often have more power than any other elected official in their county.

While there are obviously political divisions within the United Kingdom, AFAIK, they don't suffer from nearly the kind of the police corruption that we do in the United States.
It seems that some (not all, obviously) Americans can't think outside the box of their own experience or knowledge of US law enforcement. England & Wales's territorial police forces are all answerrable to the government via the Home Office, and adhere to national standards of training, and obviously the law - criminala nd civil - is same across the two countries. Scotland and Northern Ireland obviously have different legal systems and single polcie forces, but they have far more in common with England & Wales and each other than differences. There just isn't the free-for-all that happens in the States, where it seems that any tiny geographical division can have it's own tiny police forces, apparently only nomninally answerable to anyone outside that area.

Suggesting - as some have - that UWO powers will somehow "trickle down" is silly, not least because they can't trickle down as far as suggested, because those tiny sub-divisions simply don't exist in the same way here. It's also the case that these are new powers closely connected to existing Proceeds of Crime legislation, which have been used in a very targetted way for some time.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 02:20 AM   #63
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
This seems a ridiculous law. They are demanding that people prove their innocence.
No, she's being asked to prove that her wealth did not originate from her husband's established criminal activity.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 02:23 AM   #64
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Unlike in the US the state / police have to bring a case before the court, the respondent can defend the case. This is due process.
Indeed. It seems I stirred up a bit of a hornets' nest by framing this against the West West implementation of civil forfeiture in the States. It would seem that some people don't like being shown a better alternative.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 02:33 AM   #65
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,214
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Any cop can do that here too for amounts over 1K.
And below if they have due cause.

But they do need to give you a receipt!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 03:29 AM   #66
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,675
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
This seems a ridiculous law. They are demanding that people prove their innocence.
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No, she's being asked to prove that her wealth did not originate from her husband's established criminal activity.
THAT'S BEING ASKED TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE!
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 03:41 AM   #67
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
THAT'S BEING ASKED TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE!
This is a civil, rather than a criminal proceedure, but yes, she has to prove that the 10 million she used to buy the golf course, the 16 million she spunked away at Harrods, and whatever she paid for the house in Belgravia was from her own honestly-acquired wealth, as opposed to her husband's established embezzling and fraud.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 04:46 AM   #68
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,609
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
she has to prove that the 10 million she used to buy the golf course, the 16 million she spunked away at Harrods, and whatever she paid for the house in Belgravia was from her own honestly-acquired wealth, as opposed to her husband's established embezzling and fraud.
I hope she adheres to the ancient tradition by claiming in court those things "fell off the back of a lorry".
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 06:02 AM   #69
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,645
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
This is a civil, rather than a criminal proceedure, but yes, she has to prove that the 10 million she used to buy the golf course, the 16 million she spunked away at Harrods, and whatever she paid for the house in Belgravia was from her own honestly-acquired wealth, as opposed to her husband's established embezzling and fraud.
If the government believes that it is, then it is up to the government to prove it. Or at least it should be.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 06:56 AM   #70
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,214
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
If the government believes that it is, then it is up to the government to prove it. Or at least it should be.
Why?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 07:13 AM   #71
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
If the government believes that it is, then it is up to the government to prove it. Or at least it should be.
Governments do that sort of thing all the time, e.g. through scrutising/verifying tax returns (and one of the limited number of authorities who can use these powers is HMRC).
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:25 AM   #72
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,310
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
But this is not and never has been true. This is what civil law is about. I am sure you can think of cases where someone has been found not guilty of a crime and subsequently sued and had assets seized. It is common in fraud cases where it may be undesirable to publicise the fraud but the 'accused' has assets seized.

The state also does something called 'tax', which involves taking assets from persons without any conviction. One is often required to provide certain evidence to justify retention of assets.

There is a general principle that criminals should not profit from their crime. If they do then there has been a harm (tort) to society, therefore there is a perfectly good common law principle for the crown to seek correction of that tort by taking the ill gotten gains.

In this case the husband has been convicted of fraud. His wife has assets in the UK that she admits originate from her husband. She claims that they originate from legitimate business if she can demonstrate to the court e.g. by tax receipts that these profits were obtained through a legitimate business then the courts will allow her to keep her assets. My guess is that no one would argue that a criminal could keep stolen property by just giving it to their spouse and saying she did not commit a crime. (The money from selling stolen goods could be paid in cash into the spouse's account without the spouse being aware avoiding any accusation of handling stolen goods, and with no clear evidence of the source of the cash.)
I'm lucky to have had very little in the way of dealing with the IRS*. But I do believe that they have to actually prove you are guilty of tax evasion/fraud in order to take your assets. Civil forfeiture and civil suits are not a good comparison. Civil forfeiture is law enforcement deciding your assets are probably illl-gotten, now go take them to court if you want them back. A civil suit has to be successful by a government entity or private party BEFORE they take your assets.

*I did once get a letter from them stating I underpaid by about $50, and to pay up, with a tiny bit of interest, or face prosecution. I could've gone to court and fought it, but one would be insane to do so for that much. The operative word being I could have fought it in court.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:26 AM   #73
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,310
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why?
Because they might be wrong?

ETA: it is pretty obvious in this case, so prosecute her in court. The state getting to decided what is, and isn't, obvious, is the crux of the issue in my mind.

ETA2: and this really isn't a USA does things better than UK/rest of world, type thread. We have this **** here too and its been horribly abused.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 11th October 2018 at 08:31 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:29 AM   #74
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,675
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why?
*Confused* Because assumption of innocent and burden of proof are good things.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 09:43 AM   #75
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why?
Aside from the basic skeptical burden-of-proof thing, there's also the excellent principle that the government should be substantially constrained in its authority to persecute its citizens.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 10:27 AM   #76
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Aside from the basic skeptical burden-of-proof thing, there's also the excellent principle that the government should be substantially constrained in its authority to persecute its citizens.
For us in the UK one of the odd things we see in the US system is punitive damages. Punishment should be limited to the consequence of a criminal conviction. Yet the US system allows punishment as a consequence of a civil action.

In this case the wife may not have committed a crime, but that does not mean she should be entitled to keep the proceeds of her husband's crimes. It is clearly morally wrong that a criminal can evade having to hand over the profits of crime by the simple act of giving them to an innocent person. In the UK if you 'find' a pile of money that belongs to someone else you do not have the right to keep it.

To put it another way, if the money does not belong to her what right does she have to keep it? The crown on behalf of the (anonymous) victims is seeking restitution. This is a civil case, not a criminal case. There is due process.

In the tax case, the tax authorities can claim unpaid tax on a civil basis, or they can claim that someone has committed the crime of fraud in which case the consequence may be prison.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 10:43 AM   #77
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,214
People do realise that this isn't the government seizing the assets and then saying "prove they were obtainedby legitimate means"?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 02:51 PM   #78
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by Camillus View Post
That is the nature of all laws, and the enforcement of them. The US version of this is, as far as I am aware, deeply corrupt, but that does not mean the principle is wrong.

Actually, the principle behind the US version of civil forfeiture is wrong. Profoundly and disturbingly wrong. I order to side-step 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, the civil forfeiture statutes are based on 18th century case law which anthropomophized inanimate objects and invests them with individual will. To wit, the law on which civil forfeiture is based states that objects can be help complicit in criminal activity and treated as though they are independent actors that share responsibility for crimes equally with their owners, but without the protections afforded a human citizen or resident.

There was an excellent book written on the subject back when the statutes were most heavily abused: Spectre of Forfeiture by Judy Osborn

At that time, many police jurisdictions around the country were using it as a license to steal; they became little more than officially-sanctioned highway robbers. Its use was not limited to criminals or suspected criminals, but was used to seize cash and valuables up to and including cars, boats, and IIRC in one case an entire house, from law-abiding citizens who had no record of involvement in criminal activity.

After its heyday in the late '80s and early '90s, many jurisdictions and the federal government slapped some badly needed, but insufficiently stringent, restrictions on the practice, including one that made all seized cash and items property of the federal government, thus ending much of the practice. Unfortunately, the GOP has been spending the better part of the last decade working to undermine and roll back these reforms.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2018, 07:59 AM   #79
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,310
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Actually, the principle behind the US version of civil forfeiture is wrong. Profoundly and disturbingly wrong. I order to side-step 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, the civil forfeiture statutes are based on 18th century case law which anthropomophized inanimate objects and invests them with individual will. To wit, the law on which civil forfeiture is based states that objects can be help complicit in criminal activity and treated as though they are independent actors that share responsibility for crimes equally with their owners, but without the protections afforded a human citizen or resident.

There was an excellent book written on the subject back when the statutes were most heavily abused: Spectre of Forfeiture by Judy Osborn

At that time, many police jurisdictions around the country were using it as a license to steal; they became little more than officially-sanctioned highway robbers. Its use was not limited to criminals or suspected criminals, but was used to seize cash and valuables up to and including cars, boats, and IIRC in one case an entire house, from law-abiding citizens who had no record of involvement in criminal activity.

After its heyday in the late '80s and early '90s, many jurisdictions and the federal government slapped some badly needed, but insufficiently stringent, restrictions on the practice, including one that made all seized cash and items property of the federal government, thus ending much of the practice. Unfortunately, the GOP has been spending the better part of the last decade working to undermine and roll back these reforms.
Seems like such restrictions were never really enforced. An elderly woman in Philadelphia had her home confiscated (she got it back). Why? Because her son sold a small amount of pot to an undercover officer. This happened in 2009, so its hard to blame Trumpism for it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/institu.../#20bc63e22fa2

Last edited by lobosrul5; 12th October 2018 at 08:01 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2018, 08:00 AM   #80
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,675
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
People do realise that this isn't the government seizing the assets and then saying "prove they were obtainedby legitimate means"?
Fine. "It's the government saying we're going to seize your assets in X number of days unless you prove they were obtained by legitimate means."

It's still functionally reversing the burden of proof.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.