Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
Lawsuit Forces Release of Operation Rolling Thunder Records - Institute for Justice
ARLINGTON, Va.—A prolonged dispute over police transparency has ended with the release of incident reports from Operation Rolling Thunder, an annual search-and-seizure blitz on Interstate […]ij.org
The assumption that cash = crime is a complete travesty.
In March 2022, the FBI raided a private vault company, seizing any boxes holding over $5,000. The raid was executed on the purported suspicion that such funds had illegal origins. Without express authorization from a warrant, the agency seized over 400 safes, including one belonging to Linda Martin. Martin was an innocent patron of the vault, using it to set aside money for a house. The FBI seized $40,200 from her safe, intending to keep and spend her money.
This procedure, in which the government permanently confiscates any property that it claims to be connected to criminal activity, is known as civil forfeiture. Two months after this seizure, Martin received a notice from the FBI stating only that her funds had been seized pursuant to a general law that itself references hundreds of potential criminal statutes. The notice gave no explanation of her alleged wrongdoing. When she questioned the FBI about the return of her money, the agency put her through more than two years of a slow and confusing internal petition process that ultimately did not result in the return of her funds. Martin then proceeded to launch a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the FBI’s forfeiture proceedings, arguing that they deprived property owners of their due process rights. Only after Martin brought her suit did the FBI finally return her money.
A federal district court sided with the FBI, holding that Martin should have exhausted all potential internal remedies with the FBI before suing. But Martin is appealing that decision, and Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting her.
...
A study just published in Criminal Justice Review answers an important question for New Mexicans: Did reforming civil forfeiture make them less safe? That study of nine years of crime data found that, no, crime did not rise when law enforcement lost the ability to take property without charging people with a crime. The Institute for Justice (IJ) found that crime rates in New Mexico did not worsen compared to neighboring states and arrest rates did not decrease.
“These results show that ending civil forfeiture does not encourage criminals to ramp up their activities, nor does it hamper law enforcement’s ability to do their job,” said Jennifer McDonald, lead author of the study and IJ Assistant Director of Activism. “State and federal lawmakers now have empirical evidence—not just speculation and anecdotes—showing they can rein in civil forfeiture without compromising public safety.”
...
Earlier this year, a customer of Henry and Minh Cheng sent them $42,000 cash as payment to their small wholesale jewelry business. That payment never arrived because Indianapolis police seized their parcel and tried to take the money without alleging any specific crime. Now, after the Chengs defended their property from civil forfeiture with the Institute for Justice (IJ), Marion County prosecutors have agreed to return their money. The Chengs’ class-action countersuit, aimed at ending the unconstitutional seizures, will continue to move forward.
“Indiana had no basis to forfeit the Chengs’ money, and so it’s only right that the government has agreed to return it,” said IJ Attorney Marie Miller. “But many other people are affected by the state’s practices of taking money simply because it goes through Indiana and failing to identify a crime that would justify the forfeiture. The counterclaims aim to end this abuse of civil forfeiture not just for Henry and Minh, but for everyone.”
“I’m ecstatic at the prospect of getting my money back,” said Henry, “and this is just the beginning. What happened to my company shouldn’t happen to anyone. Indiana should stop trying to steal from law-abiding citizens by seizing property and figuring out later whether there’s any basis for keeping it.”
For years, police have seized cash at the busy processing center, and the Marion County prosecutor has filed civil forfeiture actions on behalf of the State of Indiana to keep the seized money. This places people like Henry and Minh in the position of having to prove their innocence in a court hundreds or thousands of miles from their home in California.
It’s a profitable practice. Since 2022 alone, Indiana has begun proceedings to forfeit more than $2.5 million from in-transit parcels, and the state has already raked in approximately $1 million from those parcels. To get their money back and to end these predatory practices, Henry and Minh teamed up earlier this year with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that defends people from abusive civil forfeiture nationwide.
Henry and Minh started their wholesale jewelry business about 30 years ago. They travel across the country serving retail shops. Early this year, they made a bulk sale to a retailer in Virginia, who was slow to submit payment. A few months after the sale, in April, the retailer informed the couple that she could pay promptly with cash. Henry and Minh agreed to accept that form of payment.
The retailer shipped the money using FedEx, and the parcel was routed through the Indianapolis FedEx hub, the second largest FedEx hub in the U.S. There, a police officer seized the package and presented it to a K-9. The dog alerted, allowing the police to get a warrant to open the parcel. After an officer found the cash in the parcel (and without finding any contraband), the Marion County Prosecutor filed a civil-forfeiture action to keep the money. As with other civil-forfeiture cases originating from the FedEx facility, the prosecutors alleged simply that the cash was proceeds of “a violation of a criminal statute.”
On August 6, IJ filed Henry and Minh’s response to the forfeiture complaint along with counterclaims alleging that the scheme violates their rights and those of classes of people in similar situations. Those counterclaims will continue.
The Institute for Justice is the nation’s leading law firm fighting for the elimination of civil forfeiture. IJ is currently bringing class-action lawsuits against the DEA and TSA for their practices of seizing money at airports. Following IJ’s release of video of a passenger bullied into permitting his bag to be searched, the Department of Justice suspended all DEA airport interdictions. IJ is also suing Indiana over forfeiture practices that let private prosecutors bring cases and keep proceeds for themselves. IJ is also a leader in civil-forfeiture research, producing reports—such as Policing for Profit—that outline the many abuses of civil forfeiture nationwide.
Texas Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture; Take First Step to Opt State Out of Federal Program
A bill filed in the Texas House would repeal the state’s civil asset forfeiture law, and take a step toward opting the state out of the federal “equitable sharing” forfeiture program as well.
Rep. Senfornia Thompson filed House Bill 914 (HB914). The legislation would replace the state’s civil asset forfeiture process with a criminal procedure requiring a conviction before the state could permanently seize property. Under the current process, the state can take a person’s property through the civil process even if they were never convicted of a crime.
HB914 would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in the civil process by requiring all forfeiture proceeds left after expenses to be deposited in the county’s general fund. Under the current process, law enforcement agencies can keep up to 70 percent of forfeiture proceeds in uncontested cases and up to 100 percent in contested cases.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?