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 12th October 2018, 08:36 AM   #81
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 13,197
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
This is a civil, rather than a criminal proceedure, . . . .
Even in a civil procedure, the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. If the defendant denies the charge and the plaintiff offers no evidence then it is a stalemate and the defendant wins.

This is a complete reversal of the onus of proof. The defendant has to provide evidence that the plaintiff is wrong or the plaintiff wins by default.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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, 09:16 AM   #82
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 8,349
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Even in a civil procedure, the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. If the defendant denies the charge and the plaintiff offers no evidence then it is a stalemate and the defendant wins.

This is a complete reversal of the onus of proof. The defendant has to provide evidence that the plaintiff is wrong or the plaintiff wins by default.
What makes you think no evidence is offered?
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 12th October 2018, 09:19 AM   #83
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,289
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
What makes you think no evidence is offered?
*Sighs*

If there's sufficient evidence to convict him, convict him and take the money. The new law is not necessary.

If there's not sufficient evidence to convict him you don't get to make up a new rule with a lower level of evidence required.

This law is either repetitive or shady.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 12th October 2018, 09:31 AM   #84
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 8,349
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Sighs*

If there's sufficient evidence to convict him, convict him and take the money. The new law is not necessary.

If there's not sufficient evidence to convict him you don't get to make up a new rule with a lower level of evidence required.

This law is either repetitive or shady.
It's been stated numerous times that this relates to somebody who has been convicted.
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 12th October 2018, 09:41 AM   #85
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,289
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's been stated numerous times that this relates to somebody who has been convicted.
They have not been convicted in the UK of the crimes that assets being threatened with seizure are in connected with.

You can't go "Well they were convicted of something else in another country so this is okay..."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 12th October 2018, 09:41 AM   #86
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's been stated numerous times that this relates to somebody who has been convicted.
Her husband was convicted not her, and if I understand correctly in a foreign country. Should the UK rely on a conviction in Azerbaijan as being fair? It would be a pretty easy case to show how the money was moved around except they used banks in countries that don't require any sort of records. A solution would be to just outright outlaw moving money in to the UK from those sort of offshore accounts. Of course thats not going to happen, the rich need their tax shelters.
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, 09:53 AM   #87
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 8,349
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
They have not been convicted in the UK of the crimes that assets being threatened with seizure are in connected with.

You can't go "Well they were convicted of something else in another country so this is okay..."
Well, all they have to do is come up with documentary evidence that the source of the money is legit. That's little different from the tax authorities investigating and prosecuting someone who appears to have a larger income than they're declaring.

I refuse to lose a second of sleep over this.
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 12th October 2018, 10:03 AM   #88
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Well, all they have to do is come up with documentary evidence that the source of the money is legit. That's little different from the tax authorities investigating and prosecuting someone who appears to have a larger income than they're declaring.

I refuse to lose a second of sleep over this.
That could be impossible, if as he says, Azerbaijan is corrupt and personally targeted him. It stands to reason that they may have destroyed any records showing his business profits. I mean there is an easy way to deal with situations like this: if rich people want to move to the UK, then vet their income source beforehand. Its a bit disingenuous to allow them and their money into the country then decide ex post facto: hey wait a minute, show us where your money came from or fork it all over.
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, 10:06 AM   #89
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,289
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Well, all they have to do is come up with documentary evidence that the source of the money is legit. That's little different from the tax authorities investigating and prosecuting someone who appears to have a larger income than they're declaring.
I'm sure whatever the UK equivalent of the IRS is it can't just go "We think this money might be dirty, prove to us it isn't."

Burden of proof is what differentiates an investigation from a shakedown.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 12th October 2018, 10:10 AM   #90
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 8,349
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm sure whatever the UK equivalent of the IRS is it can't just go "We think this money might be dirty, prove to us it isn't."
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - one of the authorities able to use these powers. They wopuld, of course, know what income an individual was declaring, and broadly from what source. If that person appeared to be living a lifestyle inconsistent with that declaration, they would certainly investigate. If they found evidence of legitimate undeclared income, they would - at the least - demand a higher cut of tax. If they could not determine a legitimate source, and if the person failed to prove one, that could lead to criminal charges, e.g. for money-laundering.
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 12th October 2018, 10:29 AM   #91
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 13,197
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - one of the authorities able to use these powers.
Not in a "prove your innocence" manner. They can't tell an individual that they have to prove that they are not a millionaire or lose all of their property (to settle a back tax bill).

What they can say is that "your expenditure is in excess of your declared income so we will tax you accordingly". However, this means that they have already acquired evidence that tips the balance of probabilities in their favour.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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, 10:30 AM   #92
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,870
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
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

Sorry, can you point out to me where I mentioned Trump?

What I said in my post, which you appear to have missed in your knee-jerk reaction:
Quote:
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, 10:37 AM   #93
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Sorry, can you point out to me where I mentioned Trump?

What I said in my post, which you appear to have missed in your knee-jerk reaction:
OK, I'll revise: its hard to blame just the GOP (or tea-partyiers is the term I should've used? I lump them in with Trumpism in my head) for this. Since these issues were happening all through out Obama's two terms. And they are not restricted to GOP controlled states and localities. There are examples from rather politically disparate parts of the country.

I'm curious, what reforms were there at the federal level concerning civil forfeiture, and how were they rolled back? Google is not helping me much.

ETA: at a non-federal level the GOP governor of New Mexico banned it, the then GOP mayor of Albuquerque basically thumbed his nose at her.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 12th October 2018 at 10:49 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, 10:49 AM   #94
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,691
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Her husband was convicted not her, and if I understand correctly in a foreign country. Should the UK rely on a conviction in Azerbaijan as being fair? It would be a pretty easy case to show how the money was moved around except they used banks in countries that don't require any sort of records. A solution would be to just outright outlaw moving money in to the UK from those sort of offshore accounts. Of course thats not going to happen, the rich need their tax shelters.
And the government needs their money. Better to let them "sneak" it into the country, and then seize it on suspicion some crime you can't be arsed to actually prove against them.
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 12th October 2018, 10:56 AM   #95
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,267
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm sure whatever the UK equivalent of the IRS is it can't just go "We think this money might be dirty, prove to us it isn't."

Burden of proof is what differentiates an investigation from a shakedown.
In the US, the IRS is primarily concerned with whether you reported all your income, not so much with whether it was from legal sources. Of course, other law enforcement agencies will likely investigate if they think the income was not earned legitimately. I'm not sure how it works in the UK.
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 12th October 2018, 11:06 AM   #96
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And the government needs their money. Better to let them "sneak" it into the country, and then seize it on suspicion some crime you can't be arsed to actually prove against them.
So, if they do believe Azerbaijan that these are ill-gotten gains made in their country, they will return it all to Azerbaijan, right?
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, 11:35 AM   #97
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,267
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
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.
I would agree that it's better than the US system, which is little more than legalized robbery. I still find the reversed burden of proof to be problematic.
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 12th October 2018, 11:39 AM   #98
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,691
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
So, if they do believe Azerbaijan that these are ill-gotten gains made in their country, they will return it all to Azerbaijan, right? : rolleyes :
I expect that at that point, they would suddenly discover that Azerbaijan has a substantial burden to prove that this money is linked to anything Azerbaijani.
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 12th October 2018, 12:16 PM   #99
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,974
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Sighs*

If there's sufficient evidence to convict him, convict him and take the money.
*sighs heavily*

You know, this appears to be a law designed to afford more protections to those who have not been convicted, based exactly on your statement here.

So instead of just convicting the guy and taking all the money, they (the govt) are saying, "we have legitimate authority in taking all of the money but if you can demonstrate that you earned xyz lawfully, you can keep it."

Not the travesty that has occurred in the US and you seem to be thinking here for Ukians too.


Quote:
The new law is not necessary.
The new law is very necessary. Unless you are fine with all family funds, houses, materials, etc. being confiscated with no option to have legitimate funds/whatevs kept.


Quote:
If there's not sufficient evidence to convict him you don't get to make up a new rule with a lower level of evidence required.

This law is either repetitive or shady.
lawl

Yes, the government "gets" to "make up a new rule." Don't be absurd, dude.



Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm sure whatever the UK equivalent of the IRS is it can't just go "We think this money might be dirty, prove to us it isn't."

Burden of proof is what differentiates an investigation from a shakedown.
This law is to prevent the shakedown.

Once more, the gov't has every authority and right to take everything after conviction. Instead, they are saying that they'll take everything except that which is legitimately earned and legitimately owned. The only way to do that is to show the evidence which demonstrates that. I must say though that legitimate money earned has plenty of evidence to show it is such so I wouldn't think it'd be too much of a hassle.
The Norseman 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, 12:48 PM   #100
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,870
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
OK, I'll revise: its hard to blame just the GOP (or tea-partyiers is the term I should've used? I lump them in with Trumpism in my head) for this. Since these issues were happening all through out Obama's two terms. And they are not restricted to GOP controlled states and localities. There are examples from rather politically disparate parts of the country.

There are also an unfortunate number of LINO Dems who pandered to their local Police Unions on the issue, and were not unhappy to see the amount of money coming in. There is corruption everywhere, it's just more common under the GOP.

Of course, it wasn't always used just to enrich PDs and individual officers, it was also used as a tool to intimidate and abuse minority individuals and communities.

Quote:
I'm curious, what reforms were there at the federal level concerning civil forfeiture, and how were they rolled back? Google is not helping me much.

I learned about it via NPR, so I'm not sure where to find it online. There was a huge backlash against the practice that worked its way up to Congress, for what should be obvious reasons.

Essentially, the Department of Justice implemented a federal policy that required that all proceeds of seizures be submitted to federal authorities, who would then decide what amount of that, if anything, would be kicked back down to the PD that seized it, while the feds plowed the rest into law-enforcement programs. IIRC there was also legislation that required that all seized assets go into law enforcement programs, and could not be given to individual officers as "bonuses", or made part of non-law-enforcement activities (eg, seized cars and boats were commonly made available by the PDs to their officers for recreational activities). That greatly reduced the amount of seizures in many precincts, as they could no longer use the laws to enrich themselves, especially with regard to non-cash seizures (jewelry, cars, boats, etc.)

Obviously this was better enforced in some areas than in others.
__________________
"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

Last edited by luchog; 12th October 2018 at 12:50 PM.
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 14th October 2018, 03:52 AM   #101
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,062
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
I think Joe's problem is the burden of proof is reversed, she has to prove she got the money honestly, rather than the government proving it is the proceeds of crime.

He has a point, but I don't think the UK' s policy of rolling out the welcome mat to corrupt oligarchs and turning a blind eye to where their money came from is a great idea either.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's the problem. The only way investigate something like this is to pretty much literally make "You have too much money" illegal, or at least legally suspicious and that's a can of worms.

Again if you trust your government's "Don't worry guys we're only going to use this on bad people we couldn't get to any other way, scout's honor we're being super serious here guys" by all means, but that's the same line we got sold here in America back during Prohibition and because we bought it last year alone law enforcement agencies just straight up up stole 2.5 billion dollars in money and personal assets with no conviction, no trial, and no due process and no way for the people it was taken from to get it back, even if they are later exonerated of the crimes they were accused of, if they were even ever actually accused of anything.

This is how it starts and a few decades later it's literally that law enforcement can take anything they want from you with zero reason.

I can certainly see that from a US POV (where as far as I understand the authorities have somehow succeeded in arguing a way around the Fourth Amendment by arguing that they are charging the assets and not the person) that would make one suspicious.

However, if you restrict it to those already convicted of serious crimes and their families, and you have a civil standard of proof then there are sufficient safeguards.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Don't they already have evidence of wrongdoing?
Or this.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 14th October 2018, 04:08 AM   #102
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,062
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.
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I hope she adheres to the ancient tradition by claiming in court those things "fell off the back of a lorry".
Indeed

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Confused* Because assumption of innocent and burden of proof are good things.
She is the spouse of someone convicted of embezzling millions of dollars, and claims that he gave her this money from his legitimate businesses.

That is a distinction without a difference. If most of my wealth was illegally obtained, but a small fraction was legitimate, then if I give someone lots of money, then it's reasonable to say it was illegitimate. It is reasonable to use civil proceedings with a lower burden of proof "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" to help ensure that criminals don't prosper from their crimes by handing out their wealth to their friends and getting it back when they get out of prison.

If you restrict it to the close associates of those who are already convicted of serious crime, then I think that is sufficient safeguard.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 15th October 2018, 06:40 AM   #103
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 548
I wish there were an analysis of this law by a legal expert in the UK. Why is civil forfeiture needed in this case? The husband was convicted of criminal embezzlement, any money or assets he is even remotely involved with have the stink of criminality.

Surely there is enough evidence of financial wrongdoing from that case to justify ordinary search warrants against anyone who may have received these ill-gotten gains, much less his wife who shares his personal household finances. Seems getting warrants or other court orders against his "legitimate" businesses would be trivially easy.

Were prosecutors unable to get court orders to freeze/investigate these accounts through the ordinary routes? Why is extraordinary power needed in this case?
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 15th October 2018 at 06:42 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 04:48 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.