My question was actually prompted by an old SVU episode, but that’s besides the point really.
Some online research confirms that assets involved in the commission of crimes can be seized. But I couldn’t find anything for outside Australia on forfeiting post-crime ‘proceeds’.
In Australia, there is legislation that prevents convicted criminals from benefiting from their crime in any way. This includes any proceeds generated post the criminal activity if it relies on that crime. EG payments for media interviews, or say if the criminal published a book about his crime. Those monies can and likely would be seized.
I’m wondering if there is any similar legislation in the US, or indeed any other countries?
Google this as “Son of Sam” laws, as that was the case in the US that prompted the passage of these types of laws.
In the US, many laws are state-specific. I believe somewhere around 40+ of our 50 states have some sort of Son of Sam law. In New York, where this originated, it originally applied only to writing about your crime, but was later amended to include broader definition of what was prohibited (as the original one was struck down by the Supremes)
OJ Simpson was never convicted criminally (ETA: for murder, anyway), so this case really has nothing to do with the OP’s question.
The correct answer is what EristicKallistic posted – the Wikipedia article on the Son of Sam law has a good outline of the history in New York and other US jurisdictions.
The US has EXTREMELY draconian asset forfeiture laws not only do you not have to be convicted of a crime, once your assets are seized it the burden of evidence is on YOU to prove you are innocence. Additionally the profit from the seized assets goes to the police dept doing the seizing.
The obvious is the “son of Sam” proceeds - payment for interviews, books, etc. This would be interesting, though… what if it were someone writing their memoirs which included one criminal episode? “Your book has 1 chapter out of 12 about the crime, so we are seizing 1/12 of your profits”?
What about the classic “hacker who turns consultant” story? You are profiting form your crime by turning it into a career. Not sure how any statute of limitations applies for civil suits, but I would imagine you could not suddenly file a new lawsuit to recover damages 5 or 10 years after the crime and damage was done. I seriously doubt any law allows you to place a lien/owner on someone’s livlihood (except in paternity cases?).
I’m not sure what other after-the-crime benefits someone might receive.
They actually (at least in NY) rewrote the laws to make it more broad. It was originally just for writing about your specific crime. The Supreme Court ruled that this was contrary to Free Speech, so NY modified it to be a more general sense of profiting from criminal acts. There is still some doubt that this would survive, but the laws have yet to be challenged.
I would suppose (having not read the law specifically and not actually being a lawyer) that it only covers directly profiting from your criminal activity. So your hacker should be OK – he is profiting by his knowledge, which is presumably legal. He is not profiting from his specific criminal activity (which would be something like, “illegally accessing X computer on Y date” or something). He did at one point use his computer knowledge to commit a crime, but it was not the knowledge that was illegal, but the act.
If I learn how to shoot a rifle very well for the purpose of armed robbery, I can later use that skill for, say, becoming a professional marksman. I cannot take the money I get from that robbery, it is forfeit. I cannot sell the rights to my crime story to FOX for a TV-Movie. Or if I do, the money goes to the victims of my crime.
If there is a doubt as to whether something counts as “profiting from crime”, it would be decided by the courts, and argued by attorneys on either side.
But often proceeds of crimes law can fall in to catergory of civil law rather than criminal law, requiring a civil rather than criminal level of proof. So it’s possible for someone to be acquitted yet still have these laws used against them. I’m not sure how much this is the case in the US.
Arthur Shawcross painted pictures in prison and sold them. The courts determined that the value of his paintings was derived from his notoriety as a serial killer and was therefore proceeds from his crimes. The money he got from his paintings was seized.