DOJ eyeing Americans ‘like ATMs,’ spending over $6 billion to aid civil asset forfeitures, watchdog says

Federal government spends billions to identify and seize assets through forfeiture, records show

The Department of Justice is shelling out more than $6 billion to private companies to manage its asset forfeiture investigations, raising alarm from one nonprofit law firm that accuses police of "treating ordinary Americans like ATMs" and seizing their cash.

"You've probably heard the adage, 'you've gotta spend money to make money.' Here, it's 'you've gotta spend money to take money,'" said Dan Alban, head of the Institute for Justice's National Initiative to End Forfeiture.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-eyeing-am...chdog-says

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

FYI - I'm changing the horribly misleading title for this thread

It's about criminal asset forfeiture - not freedom

---

FYI - I'm changing the horribly misleading title for this thread

It's about criminal asset forfeiture - not freedom

If you read the article, it does state that the DOJ does NOT need to charge anyone with a crime before they "Steal" the assets of someone that is innocent and never committed any crime.....

From the article: "Most federal forfeitures are civil, meaning the government can keep the seized property without ever charging the owner with a crime."

SO yeah, this is about freedom and people chasing the so called "American Dream".

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

FYI - I'm changing the horribly misleading title for this thread

It's about criminal asset forfeiture - not freedom

If you read the article, it does state that the DOJ does NOT need to charge anyone with a crime before they "Steal" the assets of someone that is innocent and never committed any crime.....

From the article: "Most federal forfeitures are civil, meaning the government can keep the seized property without ever charging the owner with a crime."

SO yeah, this is about freedom and people chasing the so called "American Dream".

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.

---

If you read the article, it does state that the DOJ does NOT need to charge anyone with a crime before they "Steal" the assets of someone that is innocent and never committed any crime.....

From the article: "Most federal forfeitures are civil, meaning the government can keep the seized property without ever charging the owner with a crime."

SO yeah, this is about freedom and people chasing the so called "American Dream".

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.

---

"The FBI, they feel like they can get away with anything," Martin previously told Fox News. "I just feel like it's unfair."

U.S. Private Vaults later pleaded guilty to money laundering, but neither Martin nor hundreds of other customers were charged with a crime…

Hmmm…

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

I'm old enough to remember John Oliver doing a piece on this back when Democrats cared about justice. Still, the title wasn't really relevant. Have no problems with the change. Just the casual disregard for government interference (which yes, has potential to violate liberties).

---

I'm old enough to remember John Oliver doing a piece on this back when Democrats cared about justice. Still, the title wasn't really relevant. Have no problems with the change. Just the casual disregard for government interference (which yes, has potential to violate liberties).

LOL

The entire nation has been "casual" about this for 30 years and I clearly stated a change was worthy of discussion. 

Interesting that conservatives want more gov oversight of law enforcement, but hey, I'd welcome it.
Of course we'd need to see data that supports the assertion that there is an imminent threat for Americans to be robbed of assets. And this article gave us a roaring total of one example and no supporting data.

You got some?

---

Oh, how the left has changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

---

Oh, how the left has changed.

What changed? 

Are you asserting no one on the left cares about this suddenly? The video is only from 7 years ago. 

I don't have time to watch a 16 min video, did Oliver come up with more compelling data than that fox article in the OP? 

Looks like you've simply discovered that ppl don't like asset forfeiture regardless of political persuasion/party affiliation. Clearly no one cares enough to do anything about it though - which is unfortunate.

---

FYI - I'm changing the horribly misleading title for this thread

It's about criminal asset forfeiture - not freedom

Interesting.  An individual with authority that doesn’t see government overreach wants to change things to their liking?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Oh, how the left has changed.

What changed? 

Are you asserting no one on the left cares about this suddenly? The video is only from 7 years ago. 

I don't have time to watch a 16 min video, did Oliver come up with more compelling data than that fox article in the OP? 

Looks like you've simply discovered that ppl don't like asset forfeiture regardless of political persuasion/party affiliation. Clearly no one cares enough to do anything about it though - which is unfortunate.

Interesting. You don't have time to watch an entertaining 16-minute video on civil forfeiture? How can you possibly consider yourself informed on anything? You must be a busy, busy man.

---

What changed? 

Are you asserting no one on the left cares about this suddenly? The video is only from 7 years ago. 

I don't have time to watch a 16 min video, did Oliver come up with more compelling data than that fox article in the OP? 

Looks like you've simply discovered that ppl don't like asset forfeiture regardless of political persuasion/party affiliation. Clearly no one cares enough to do anything about it though - which is unfortunate.

Interesting. You don't have time to watch an entertaining 16-minute video on civil forfeiture? How can you possibly consider yourself informed on anything? You must be a busy, busy man.

I have two jobs and when I'm posting here I also have 13 other windows open on my computer as I work out contracts, schedules, negotiations, advertising, track inventory and strategize upgrades. 

So yeah - I'll get to it at some point - but when I posted that I def didn't have 16 minutes. Maybe before I drift off later or with tomorrows first cup of Joe.

---

Oh man, you're gonna have choices to make tomorrow. 16-minute video tomorrow morning or read my book in the other thread.... I do not envy you, sir.

---