(08-10-2023, 09:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(08-10-2023, 09:45 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: No it isn't. 

It is a call to reform the practice of seizing assets while unnecessarily scaring readers into believing they could be targeted by a seizure at any time. 

The one example the reporter mustered was a rich lady worth 86 million who had her [BLEEP] in the safety deposit boxes of a bank who that was found guilty of laundering money. What a victim!! LOL

All the rest is speculative fear mongering crap. You fell for it. Congratulations.

Now - if you are keen to take this influx of seized cash away from federal and local law enforcement and create more government oversight to insure there are fewer victims of unwarranted seizures, I know a few million Democrats who would vote for that, LOL.

I beg to differ.  She most certainly is a victim.  She had nothing to do with money laundering.

She had her money in a bank that was laundering money.

As part of the investigation - the FBI seized 42,000 dollars of her savings there and returned it two years later. 

Yeah  - it sucks, but it is the price of doing business with a bank that turned out to be a money laundering operation and collateral inconvenience is part of our criminal justice system. They had to vet all of that money. Unfortunate she had to fight to get hers back.

 Let's not pretend this sets some precedent that "This is not the land of the free, and the FBI is coming for your nest egg!!" 

That's bull [BLEEP]. But that's what the article and drifter were trying to say.

---