(08-10-2023, 10:26 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(08-10-2023, 10:20 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: 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.

Your implication was that because she was rich, having her money taken was no big deal and she wasn't really a victim.  I have long thought that civil forfeiture is way out of hand, and no one should have their property seized without being charged with a crime.  Right now, the police can stop you on the highway and take your money.  They should not have the right to do that.

It's been that way for decades. 

Every now and then we see these anecdotal cases of presumably innocent Americans inconvenienced or victimized by it. 

I've seen zero data to suggest it is a widespread issue.  That would be worthy of an article that asserts such wild fear mongering. But they didn't provide anything at all to support their assertions that we should all suddenly worry about. a decades old practice - save one anecdotal account wherein the lady got her money back. 

A discussion on whether the current laws governing asset forfeiture are fair is worthy of a thread. 
Sure. 
I was merely trying to provide context to the misleading title "Land of the Free?? Not anymore" 
I changed it to a fair description of what the article presents.

If anyone has suggestions that are more accurate, I'm open to altering it again. I'm not trying top censor anyone, but  also can't allow wildly misleading titles.

---