# New asset seizure laws... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2001, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714 "2001-10-01T03:23:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/1 "2001-10-01T03:23:28Z")
So how do you guys feel about the government’s new found ability to seize assets without ANYTHING but mere hearsay or suspicion? They’ll only use it against terorrists… right? After all, they only use the drug war forteiture laws against drug dealers… Sure, this is a time of national unity - when we feel like we should give up something to our Benevolent Government for safety - but, I mean, isn’t that how they always sneak stuff past us? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/2 "2001-10-01T03:48:47Z")
Cite? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/3 "2001-10-01T03:52:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > **So how do you guys feel about the government’s new found ability to seize assets without ANYTHING but mere hearsay or suspicion?** As far as I know, there have been no changes in the seizure laws since September 11. I’m not sure if the Administration’s antiterrorism bill (currently being loudly debated in Congress) would affect them or not, but I’m reasonably certain that that bill has not been passed. Care to explain what you’re talking about, perhaps with citations to illustrate your points? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/4 "2001-10-01T04:45:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > > **So how do you guys feel about the government’s new found ability to seize assets without ANYTHING but mere hearsay or suspicion?** > > As far as I know, there have been no changes in the seizure laws since September 11. I’m not sure if the Administration’s antiterrorism bill (currently being loudly debated in Congress) would affect them or not, but I’m reasonably certain that that bill has not been passed. > > Care to explain what you’re talking about, perhaps with citations to illustrate your points? \*\* Er, I don’t have any cites. I’ve only heard things on the news, repeatedly, about freezing and seizing the assets of suspected terrorists. I also remember a UN resolution which demanded that all member nations did the same. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/5 "2001-10-01T05:10:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*I’ve only heard things on the news, repeatedly, about freezing and seizing the assets of suspected terrorists. I also remember a UN resolution which demanded that all member nations did the same. \*\* Countries have **always** had the power to seize the assets of foreigners for any reasonable cause (such as being involved in an act of war against the nation in which the asset exists). For example, the United States seized all Iranian assets in the US when the Teheran Hostage Crisis began, and is still holding most of them. We did the same with Iraqi assets during Desert Storm. This extends not only to assets held by the country itself, but those held by private citizens of that country. Such is the language of diplomacy. Assets seized in this matter are not generally forfeit; rather, they are held in trust by the Secretary of State. If we forfeited them, we would lose their usefulness as a diplomatic tool. Whether the assets of these suspected terrorists will be forfeited or merely frozen remains to be seen. Seizure only requires an order from the Secretary of State or the Attorney General; forfeiture requires a court order. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/6 "2001-10-01T12:24:06Z")
The British government has [acted](http://www.msnbc.com/news/631870.asp?0cb=-41924124) to freeze assets: > [@](#): > > Addressing his nation on Sunday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he had seen “incontrovertible” evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the terrorist attacks on the United States and warned the Taliban against protecting him. Britain has frozen about $90 million in assets of Afghanistan’s Taliban movement, taking a lead among U.S. partners in the campaign against terrorism. The United States government has not. To which government are you referring, **SenorBeef**? If it’s the U.S. government, there’s nothing “new” about the ability to freeze foreign assets, as **KellyM** discusses above. I don’t know about British laws, but I rather suspect they are not “new” either. Does that handle your question, **SenorBeef**? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/7 "2001-10-01T12:25:23Z")
My bad. They were executive orders. Still sort of vaguely makes me nervous - terrorist is such an ambiguous word when the government wants it to be. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/8 "2001-10-01T13:25:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*My bad. They were executive orders. Still sort of vaguely makes me nervous - terrorist is such an ambiguous word when the government wants it to be. \*\* I wouldn’t worry overly much. As a US citizen (I’m guessing) if the government seized your assets you can march into court ASAP and have something done about it. Unless the government had good cause to do so chances are good you’d get your money released in short order. Given that very real possibility my guess is the government wouldn’t seize your assets unless it had a good case against you to begin with. As others have mentioned diplomacy between nations is a different matter. Presumably you could go to court in the country in question and seek to have your money released but I don’t suppose UbL or the Taliban will be flying to the US anytime soon to file a court case. IF your money was seized by the Afghani government my guess is going to court their would be a decidedly worthless prospect (I’d be surprised if they even had mechanisms there for this kind of thing) and probably not very wise. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/9 "2001-10-02T05:43:14Z")
Whack-a-Mole wrote: > [@](#): > > As a US citizen (I’m guessing) if the government seized your assets you can march into court ASAP and have something done about it. Unless the government had good cause to do so chances are good you’d get your money released in short order. Given that very real possibility my guess is the government wouldn’t seize your assets unless it had a good case against you to begin with. I think some of the people who had their assets seized in the “war on drugs” might disagree with this. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/10 "2001-10-02T13:13:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*I think some of the people who had their assets seized in the “war on drugs” might disagree with this. \*\* I agree some of the seizure laws in the war on drugs are pretty draconian. Nevertheless you still have rights and can exercise them in court. If the police followed procedure and the law you may still be SOL but that’s the breaks however shitty it may be. You also might take your case to the press and see if the court of public opinion would do you any good but our government seems largely immune to that in all but the most extreme cases that gets the vast majority of the US population behind a particular cause. Still, it can be worth a try. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/11 "2001-10-02T13:49:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*My bad. They were executive orders. Still sort of vaguely makes me nervous - terrorist is such an ambiguous word when the government wants it to be. \*\* I see. Well, I assume you’re referring to Executive Order 13224, [Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=fr25se01-133.pdf). This is one of only two Executive Orders issued by the President subsequent to September 11th, and the other dealt with activation of military personnel. In the Order, the President uses the authority granted by Congress in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701 _et seq_)and the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1601 _et seq_). Under this authority, the President may: > [@](#): > > …investigate, regulate, or prohibit - > (i) any transactions in foreign exchange, > (ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof, > (iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities; and > (B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest; by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. **SenorBeef** - this is not a new law. It existed before President Bush was even a candidate for the office. So I guess I’m a little confused about why you’d call it a “new-found” ability. Congress has for years granted the President, in times of national emergency, broad powers to regulate to freeze foreign-owned assets. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![beergeek279](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@beergeek279](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beergeek279)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/12 "2001-10-02T17:57:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > > \*\*I think some of the people who had their assets seized in the “war on drugs” might disagree with this. \*\* > > I agree some of the seizure laws in the war on drugs are pretty draconian. Nevertheless you still have rights and can exercise them in court. If the police followed procedure and the law you may still be SOL but that’s the breaks however shitty it may be. > > You also might take your case to the press and see if the court of public opinion would do you any good but our government seems largely immune to that in all but the most extreme cases that gets the vast majority of the US population behind a particular cause. Still, it can be worth a try. \*\* Well, the perversion of civil asset forfeiture is the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is placed upon the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty of the crime. In civil asset forfeiture, however, the burden of proof is not on the government to prove that the property was used in relation to drigs (and now I suppose terrorist activities) but rather on the owner to prove that the property was NOT. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/13 "2001-10-03T03:52:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RugbyMan \* > Well, the perversion of civil asset forfeiture is the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is placed upon the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty of the crime. In civil asset forfeiture, however, the burden of proof is not on the government to prove that the property was used in relation to drigs (and now I suppose terrorist activities) but rather on the owner to prove that the property was NOT. _sigh_ Cite? Let me save you some time. That’s not so. A civil _in rem_ forfeiture does, it’s true, use a different standard of proof. But the burden is still on the government to prove, by preponderance of the evidence (or sometimes merely by probable cause) that the property is subject to forfeit. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 881 _et seq_, see also \*Republic Nat. Bank Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80,81 (1992); United States v. One Assortment Of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984); and about a zillion others. Why would you post something like this when it’s not true? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/14 "2001-10-03T05:22:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > **Why would you post something like this when it’s not true?** Because it makes it easier to justify dissing the law. It’s a lot easier to rationalize a disregard of the law if you make it appear that the law is grossly unfair. ---
**Author:** ![beergeek279](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@beergeek279](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beergeek279)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/15 "2001-10-03T13:30:57Z")
[http://www.fear.org/pittpres.html](http://www.fear.org/pittpres.html) > [@](#): > > The government need only show probable cause for a seizure, a standard no greater than what is needed to get a search warrant. The lower standard means that the government can take a home without any more evidence than it normally needs to take a look inside. > > Clients who challenge the government, says attorney Edward Hinson of Charlotte, N.C., ``have the choice of fighting the full resources of the U.S. Treasury or caving in.’’ > > Barry Kolin caved in. > > Kolin watched Portland, Ore., police padlock the doors of Harvey’s, his bar and restaurant, for bookmaking on March 2. > > Earlier that day, eight police officers and Amy Holmes Hehn, the Multnomah County deputy district attorney, had swept into the bar, shooed out waitresses and customers and arrested Mike Kolin, Barry’s brother and bartender, on suspicion of bookmaking. > > Nothing in the police documents mentioned Barry Kolin, and so the 40-year- old was stunned when authorities took his business, saying they believe he knew about the betting. He denied it. > > Hehn concedes she did not have the evidence to press a criminal case against Barry Kolin, ``so we seized the business civilly.’’ > > During a recess in a hearing on the seizure weeks later, ``the deputy DA says if I paid them $30,000 I could open up again,’’ Kolin recalls. When the deal dropped to $10,000, Kolin took it. > > Kolin’s lawyer, Jenny Cooke, calls the seizure ``extortion.’’ She says: ‘‘There is no difference between what the police did to Barry Kolin or what Al Capone did in Chicago when he walked in and said, ‘This is a nice little bar and it’s mine.’ The only difference is today they call this civil forfeiture.’’ That’s just one story, printed in a major newspaper…would you care for some others??? There’s many innocent victims of a law that I have to “rationalize iinto disgregard to make it appear unfair” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/16 "2001-10-03T14:14:48Z")
Ir would seem that **RugbyMan** is largely correct in regard to asset forfeiture. [This link](http://www.aclu.org/congress/l080299a.html) to an ACLU page has a long list of some of the more aggregious cases in which the government seemed to be a bit overzealous (to put it nicely). You also might find [this ad](http://www.aclu.org/graphics/forfeiture_ad.jpg) from the ACLU on the same topic amusing. The Detroit News had the following: > [@](#): > > [Defense lawyers vilify state forfeiture laws](http://detnews.com/2000/oakland/0009/10/c04-117429.htm) _September 10, 2000_ > > Lustig believes state forfeiture laws should be in line with federal law, which earlier this year put the responsibility on the government to prove assets were proceeds of illegal activity or facilitated it before they could be seized. Unfortunately I have no more info than that on what the Fed’s are doing and if the new forfeiture law is substantially better than the old forfeiture laws. Still, it seems to leave a gaping hole for the states to ride through with whatever forfeiture laws they see fit so it may be a moot point. I don’t know. If it doesn’t constitute too much of a hijack I’d be interested to know if there have been any test cases that made it to the US Supreme Court? If not then why not? It sure seems as if the government is out of control on this issue and needs to be reigned in. Heck, the forfeiture laws even make for strange bedfellows…the ACLU (typically very liberal) and the NRA (typically very conservative) both stand on the same side of the fence on this one. Go figure… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/17 "2001-10-03T19:53:36Z")
No, **RugbyMan** is not “largely correct,” **Whack-a-Mole**. He said: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RugbyMan > Well, the perversion of civil asset forfeiture is the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is placed upon the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty of the crime. In civil asset forfeiture, however, the burden of proof is not on the government to prove that the property was used in relation to drigs (and now I suppose terrorist activities) but rather on the owner to prove that the property was NOT. \* That’s not true. False. Inaccurate. Incorrect. And, also, wrong. In his subsequent post, he pastes an article that correctly states the facts: > [@](#): > > The government need only show probable cause for a seizure, a standard no greater than what is needed to get a search warrant. The lower standard means that the government can take a home without any more evidence than it normally needs to take a look inside. Now, he may argue, as he appears to do, that this is an unfair standard of proof. For what it’s worth, I agree. In my view, the standard of proof for civil seizures should be uniform, and it should be by preponderance of the evidence. But his first post claimed that the burden was shifted to the owner of the property to prove that “…the property was NOT…” subject to seizure. That’s a huge jump from simply being dissatisfied with the probable cause standard that the _government must use to prove_ that the property is subject to seizure. With me? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![beergeek279](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@beergeek279](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beergeek279)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/18 "2001-10-03T21:06:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Now, he may argue, as he appears to do, that this is an unfair standard of proof. For what it’s worth, I agree. In my view, the standard of proof for civil seizures should be uniform, and it should be by preponderance of the evidence. > > But his first post claimed that the burden was shifted to the owner of the property to prove that “…the property was NOT…” subject to seizure. That’s a huge jump from simply being dissatisfied with the probable cause standard that the government must use to prove that the property is subject to seizure. The original standard of proof that exists may require probable cause, but once the property is \* seized \* then the burden of proof (and financial burden as well)exists for the owner to prove that the seized property has nothing to do with the crime. Even in a criminal trial, once probable cause (a search warrant and then arraignment) is exhausted, once the criminal trial begins, then the burden of proof moves to the state…no such luxury in asset forfeiture (which I consider an even more extreme measure…taking away a man’s property should not be a trivial matter!) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/19 "2001-10-03T23:28:14Z")
**RugbyMan** , think about what you’re saying. If the burden is on the giovernment to show probable cause… and they show probable cause… then they don’t need to do anything more. It’s not that “the burden has shifted” - it’s merely that the government has met its burden. Without any other evidence, then, they will win. A defendant in this situation must offer some evidence if he wishes to prevail. But the overall burden is on the government. Now, it’s true, in a criminal trial, that making probable cause for arrest or indictment is only the first step. The accused must still be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why, as you suggest, criminal trials don’t end after the government has shown probable cause. **Again, to be very clear: the BURDEN IS ON THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW, AT LEAST BY PROBABLE CAUSE, that the property is subject to forfeit.** That’s not what you said above. You claimed that the burden is on the accused. It is not. Are we clear on this now? Another example, if we’re not. Let’s say the charge is robbery, and at the close of the government’s case, they have proven every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt - that is, if the defense rested without presenting any evidence, a reasonable finder of fact would return a guilty verdict. Would you say the accused must “prove his innocence?” No. That’s not our system - it’s just that the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt… _and it has_. In the forfeit cases above, same deal - the government must prove its case - and it does. Where we agree is that the _standard of proof_ needed is too low. I would impose a uniform standard of ‘preponderance of the evidence’ in asset forfeiture cases - I agree that ‘probable cause’ is insufficient. I would also rule that a criminal acquittal would act as a collateral estoppel bar against subsequent civil forfeiture actions arising from the same transaction – that is, if you’re charged with drug possession and your car is seized as well… if you’re acquitted of the criminal charge, the government could not proceed with the civil action. But all of this is not why I posted - it was to correct the ignorance of the claim that somehow the law imposed a burden, from the start, on the defendant in civil _in rem_ forfeitures. As should be abundantly clear from the foregoing, it does not. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714/20 "2001-10-04T02:01:06Z")
well, I think it is a matter of how you look at it. The cops interrogate joe blow and decide the $8000 he has on him may be the product of illegal activity so, without further proof or judicial process the cash is forfeited. Now the burden is on Joe Blow to initiate the judicial process to recover the property. The way i see it, the state needs mere suspicion to take his property and now the burden is on him to recover it. That is like if the cops could put him in jail without judicial process and it was up to him to start the judicial process to get out. It is not a question of burden of proof but a question of burden of due judicial process. IMHO it should be the state proves their case (with whatever level of proof, I would say beyond any reasonable doubt) **first** and then takes the property. The way things are now the penalty is imposed without due process and the burden is on the citizen to recover. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-asset-seizure-laws/84714.md?page=2)