Civil Asset Forfeiture

In the United States “civil forfeiture" is a legal procedure which might be brought during or after criminal accusations are recorded in the court. It is a court proceeding recorded against a property or against a person which allows law enforcement to take away cash and or property. Based on the article End of Forfeiture (2017), 87% of federal forfeitures were not criminals but civil, the government didn’t have to convict or charge anyone to take the property. Once the U.S. Lawyer's Office gets a referral from a seizing organization of a seized resource case, that office has 90 days to either document a civil legal case or incorporate the seized resource in a criminal arraignment and name it for criminal Forfeiture. On the off chance that a civil case is not documented within those 90 days, the CAFRA "capital punishment" will keep the United States from continuously recording a civil Forfeiture case. If the advantage is incorporated into a prosecution and the respondent is later vindicated or has a conviction turned around to offer, the property can't be surrendered. Thus, numerous U.S. prosecutors record a suspicious civil forfeiture activity and incorporate the property for criminal forfeiture in an arraignment (Weld, n.d, 2011.).

This year (2015) civil forfeiture laws have come under scrutiny in the state of Oklahoma. These laws are what enable law enforcement to confiscate money and property without the need to charge first with a crime. State senator Kyle Loveless aims to revise the forfeiture laws so that criminal charges become a requirement before any seizing takes place. A measure which the Department of Justice (a federal executive branch) has already taken. Currently authorities can seize assets under simple suspicion of criminal involvement and any unchallenged funds are solely directed to aid law enforcement objectives. It is this loose end in the system where senator Loveless points out the corruption committed by authorities utilizing said funds

On the off chance that there has been an important criminal conviction in a specific matter, then the weight of verification in

In the UK, the law on predicate offences and money laundering (ML) is set out in the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002. Under the POCA (applied from 24/02/03), the Crown has to prove that the laundered proceeds are criminal property i.e. prior to ML taking place a criminal offence under UK law was carried out (predicate offence). The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) defines ML as “the process by which criminal proceeds are sanitised to disguise their illicit origins”. The criminal proceeds being those funds generated from the predicate crime.

officials found the cash and a slew of confidential documents as well as thumb drives.

Civil forfeiture is the ability of a state or federal police authority to, “seize and keep property that is suspected of involvement in criminal activity” (Krause, 2010). It exists under the legal fiction that things in addition to people can be found guilty of crimes. Because property receives very little protection it often has no way to fight the charges against it. While the intent is generally to prevent crimes involving the trade and trafficking of narcotics it has created such ridiculous cases as United States v. $32,820.56, In the Matter of Seizure of $446,651.11, State of New Jersey v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird, & United States v. 434 Main Steer, Tweksbury, Mass (End Forfeiture, 2014). Interestingly enough when assets are acquired via civil forfeiture, the police department is at sometimes will to sell and spend the profits any way that is sees fit. Often times this has created instances where this practice has been called policing for profit. When looking at what is a good law and what is a bad law, this law is an extreme example of a law that is unreasonable and should be modified.

Without informing the owner, a law enforcement agent has the authority to invade houses take pictures of some items and even seize objects as evidences . Such practice raised the concerns of civil libertarians especially after the justice department revealed that it carried 108 delayed notification searches between 2003 and

Store security personnel detect as many as two million shoplifting cases per year, but many are not reported to the police. And of the almost 400,000 shoplifters detained and turned over to the police annually, the vast majority are not arrested partly because shoplifters often are not tried and sentenced.

Search and seizure is a technique used in much civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person 's property and impound any related evidence to the offence. In other words, it is a pursuit by law enforcement officials for possessions or communications alleged to be evidence of the crime, and the act of taking possession of this assets. The law of search and seizures is very essential in helping fight the current pursuit of criminals. The evidence from the search and rescue process provides some form of proof for the prosecution of the alleged criminal.

tags. Such as vehicles, personal property and high end items in stores or on people. Not all of these are looked at as theft. Depending on the amount, item, intention and what was involved to help steal all depends on the circumstances that judge the consequences. Robbery is when one has the intension to steal product(s) with the intent to severally hurt or kill anything in or around its path. This involves a direct or indirect weapon of any kind weather its intent is for the use of scaring someone to give up the product(s) or use this tool for the help to break in. House breaks in’s (B&E), vehicle theft and breaking into a vehicle is all categorized as robbery due to the severity and intent to do such an act. Robbery can jeopardize and threaten the life of

      There are two types of forfeiture (confiscation) cases, criminal and civil. Approximately half of all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil, although many of those are filed in parallel to a related criminal case. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third-party claimant. The burden is on

The crime of civil asset forfeiture has seen taken advantage by the Department of justice in order to benefits themselves. It has been seen that the they will abuse this crime when they are in economic troubles. In troubled years like 2008 to 2014 “ forfeiture is an attractive way to keep revenue streams flowing when budgets are tight” they see civil asset forfeiture as an easy way to increase their funds. This has seen a rise in the activity in the crime now because they see the motive in the committing this crime because it is benefiting their

If this is already in your possession keep it secure and advise the person you report to where this 'evidence' is.

The utilization of asset forfeiture in criminal examinations means to weaken the financial foundation of the criminal organization. In general criminal organizations make profits by doing criminal activities. Therfore, asset forfeiture is used to take away the property, profits, and sometimes their products, making the criminal organization powerless to run. The motivation behind asset forfeiture is to help police in upholding the law, enhance their abilities through upgraded income, and grow collaboration between

How would you feel if the police were legally allowed to confiscate your property and resources just because they were suspicious of you? And in the end the police did not even charge you of any crime? Police confiscation like this is allowed through civil forfeitve been ure, a policy where the police are allowed to impound any citizens possessions out of suspicion, even without having to charge the same citizen with a crime. People’s lives have been ruined through civil fortitude as police take advantage of this system and steal thousands of dollars from people who legally have done nothing wrong. There have been critics and bill that want to reform the system but the police pusn back believing the legality of civil forfeiture. We in the