When Jimmy Savile, the British celebrity accused post-death of a catalogue of iniquities, died he left several million to relatives. When all the stories emerged the money was seized and the beneficiaries of the will got nada.
Now I’m not defending Savile. In all probability the guy was a creep of the first order. But I was always under the impression that the law operated by facts established in court beyond a reasonable doubt, not by probabilities. Saviile died unconvicted of anything. What gave authorities the right to freeze his assets to recompense his victims? In legal terms how can you be a victim when nobody has been convicted of committing a crime against you?
Could this happen in the US, ie confiscation of assets without due process?
The reports of what Savile allegedly did make scary reading. But what I find scarier is the prospect of the government snatching the money I left to my children on the basis of tittle-tattle.
In the US it happens even more, there’s this thing called civil forfeiture where a cop can take any money you’re carrying during, for example, a traffic stop, and keep it without even charging you of anything.
It happens all the time in the US in terms of asset forfeiture - the government seizing cars, money and items that they think were obtained from criminal enterprises. Sometimes it’s done without the person even being convicted of any crime. I think it’s entirely wrong to do this without a conviction, and without proving how the items were bought.
But I’ve never heard of confiscating money after someone’s death to give to victims. That’s not to say it hasn’t been done, but I haven’t heard of it. You’re correct that - no matter what people think Savile did - I don’t see how the government gets to confiscate what should go to his heirs. Heck, even if he HAD been criminally convicted, wouldn’t it require victims to win civil suits to be awarded money?
Varies by location; in Spain, criminal trials can include compensation (monetary awards to victims) among the penalties. In theory someone could get hit simultaneously with a fine, plus trial costs, plus compensation.
What makes the case in the OP even more intriguing is the fact that Saville’s crimes weren’t financial in nature. Committing his crimes (never proven) didn’t result in more money for him. Even if one were to argue that money should be confiscated from an embezzler, bank robber or mafioso after their death, it doesn’t equate to taking money from someone whose crimes were not financial in nature.
I’m not sure what happened to Jimmy Savile’s estate but, in America, the victims could also get the money by suing Savile’s estate for damages. Here is a simple discussion. If the victims proved more damages than Savile had in the estate after superior claims were made, his heirs would get nothing. This has nothing to do with civil asset forfeiture to the government of the proceeds of crime.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I call it “legalized stealing”. It’s just one of a plethora of injustices in a nation that touts, “liberty and justice for all”.
So, based on the BBC links provided, this wasn’t a case of “authorities” who “confiscated” assets. It was the result of individuals bringing civil complaints against the estate, which led to a settlement process in the civil courts.
But from the BBC article linked above, it sounds like “the estate” which made the settlement was just the entity appointed to act as executors of the estate. One of the beneficiaries attempted to challenge the settlement but this was rejected.
So ISTM that the concerns raised here are warranted. The executors of the estate had no particular loyalty to the beneficiaries, and them making a settlement on behalf of the estate stripped the beneficiaries of what would have been coming to them.
That is exactly the way it is supposed to be. I was executor of my mother’s estate. I was executor because she appointed me. The first thing I was legally required to do was to advertise for claims against the estate. The estate was small enough that I didn’t have to go into full probate (in Idaho - all states have different rules), but until all debts and claims were settled, the estate couldn’t be closed. I also had a responsibility to disburse the estate as the decedent (Mom) intended, and to provide the heirs (there were three of us) with a complete accounting.
For a small estate, it may not matter if the executor is also an heir. For a big estate, it’s better if the executors are professionals. In a big estate, many properties will need to be assessed and liquidated, which can take years. (Mom’s house took nine months to sell and we were relieved that it went that quickly.) During that time, the estate can earn income from properties and royalties, so the estate may have to file income tax. It can get complicated.
Most people don’t realize it, but an estate, like a corporation, is treated as a separate individual. Mom’s estate was assigned a federal tax number, to keep its taxes separate from her taxes, which used her SSN. If someone had tripped and fallen in her driveway, even after she died, but before the house sold, they could have sued the estate.
I think you’re quoting tFotheringhay-Phipps, not me. But I agree with you.
The executor’s first responsibility is to pay all claims against the deceased. That may involve a judgment call about whether the claim has merit. If in doubt, executors often will seek the guidance of the civil courts.
Getting back to the OP, yes, to prove a criminal offence, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has a very high onus to convict someone of a criminal offence.
But this appears to have been civil claims, brought by private parties. In civil claims, where the liberty of the subject is not at stake, only money, the burden is lower. The plaintiffs have to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same thing as with OJ Simpson: acquitted of criminal offences, as the prosecutor didn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, then found civilly liable to the family of the deceased, based on balance of probabilities.
You don’t understand the principle that a deceased person’s debts must be paid before any remaining assets are distributed? If you loan me a million dollars, and I die, my estate has to pay you back before my estate can hand that million dollars over to my kids.
It’s true that if you loan me a million dollars, and I spend most of it on booze, women, and fast cars and squander the rest, and then I die, my heirs have no obligation to pay you back. But any debts I have (if any) must be discharged before my heirs get one penny.
Sure, the heirs are entitled to challenge people who show up out of the woodwork and claim that the deceased owed them money. That’s what the courts are for. But creditors are always paid before heirs.
No, I understand that principle fine. But speaking of not understanding things, you don’t seem to have understood the OP of this thread.
Everyone agrees that if the estate is legally obligated to pay something, then that gets paid first. The point made in the OP was that in this case that legal obligation was not established. So the question was why this obligation was paid anyway.
Some people responded that the estate made this settlement. In that context, I observed that “the estate” did not represent the interests of the beneficiaries. Therefore the executors were paying an obligation whose existence had not been established in court, to the detriment of the beneficiaries.