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. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.
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!
...
WCNC continued its excellent series on civil forfeiture Wednesday, reporting that Charlotte-area police departments had received $20 million since 2018 through the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program. The story included a notable interview with Jonathan Thompson, executive director of the NSA.
Thompson's exchange with a WCNC reporter is worth quoting in full:
Jonathan Thompson - executive director of the NSA said:"You want to assume everybody's innocent of a crime that's carrying $1 million in cash?" Thompson asked.
"Isn't that the way the law works? You're innocent until proven guilty?" WCNC Charlotte responded.
"You are innocent until proven guilty, but you are not just carrying around $1 million or $10,000 in cash without some level of notification and legitimacy," he replied. "You've got to be able to demonstrate some level of legitimacy."
"If it's not illegal to carry the cash, why should I have to prove that it's my cash to begin with?" WCNC Charlotte asked.
"How do I know this is yours?" he replied.
"You could get probable cause and arrest me," WCNC Charlotte responded.
"That's exactly what they do and if they don't, they need policies and procedures," Thompson said. "Let's define the proper guideposts here. That's what we're saying."
There are several issues with Thompson's comments—the dismissal of the presumption of innocence, and the rather extreme range of what's considered suspicious cash, for instance—but his claim that obtaining probable cause and arresting suspects is exactly what police do in civil forfeiture cases is incorrect.
...
A bill introduced in the Colorado House would require a criminal conviction before the state could proceed with the asset forfeiture process in most cases. The enactment of this legislation would also further opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.
Rep. Ken Degraaf and Rep. Mark Baisley introduced House Bill 1023 (HB1023) on Jan. 10. Under the proposed law, the state must file a forfeiture proceeding within 90 days after the property is seized, and the state establishes that the seized property is an instrumentality of, or proceeds derived directly from, the crime for which the owner is convicted. The bill specifically stipulates that all proceedings in the forfeiture action would be stayed until a criminal conviction is obtained.
...
...
The US government won’t specify why it abruptly seized more than $100 million from people’s safety deposit boxes in California, according to a new lawsuit.
...
Linda and Reggie Martin want to know why the FBI took their cash, along with the contents of hundreds of other people’s safety deposit boxes, from a financial storage company in Beverly Hills in March of 2021.
...
This morning, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled against the government in a long-running class action lawsuit from the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of people who rented security deposit boxes at US Private Vaults. The decision slammed the FBI for overstepping its authority when it opened up hundreds of renters’ boxes, conducted criminal searches of them all, and attempted to permanently keep everything in the boxes worth more than $5,000, all without charging any box renter with a crime.
“Today’s opinion draws a line in the sand, to ensure something like this never happens again,” said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Johnson. “If this had come out the other way, the government could have exported this raid as a model across the country. Now, the government is on notice its actions violated the Fourth Amendment.”
Judge Milan D. Smith, writing for the court, likened the FBI’s actions to the abuses that motivated the Bill of Rights: “[T]he government failed to explain why applying the inventory exception to this case would not open the door to the kinds of ‘writs of assistance’ the British authorities used prior to the Founding to conduct limitless searches of an individual’s personal belongings. It was those very abuses of power, after all, that led to adoption of the Fourth Amendment in the first place.”
“We knew that what the FBI did to us and so many others was wrong and today’s decision is a validation,” said Jennifer Snitko. “It took courage for Paul and I to be among the first people to stand up publicly and call out the government but we are proud to have fought for our rights. This is a good day for our country and the principle that the government’s power to search our property has limits.”
For years, the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) insisted that they did nothing wrong at US Private Vaults. Even though the warrant authorizing the raid only permitted the FBI to open boxes to identify their owners and safeguard the contents, agents rummaged through hundreds of boxes, ran currency they found in front of drug sniffing dogs, and made copies of people’s most personal records. The DOJ then filed a massive administrative forfeiture claim to take more than $100 million in cash and other valuables, again, without charging any individual with a crime.
“The government promised the magistrate that it would not conduct a criminal search or seizure of the boxes,” said IJ Senior Attorney Robert Frommer. “After years of litigation, today’s opinion shows that not to be true. The government lied to justify its forfeiture scheme, and in the end the lie was its undoing.”
A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would reform the state’s asset forfeiture process to require a conviction in most cases. The enactment of this bill would also take a step to opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.
Del. Mike Pushkin introduced House Bill 4531 (HB4531) on Jan. 10. The legislation would replace the current civil asset forfeiture process in West Virginia with a criminal procedure requiring a conviction before the state could move forward with forfeiture.
...
...
In March 2021, the FBI raided US Private Vaults. The warrant authorizing the raid directed officers to focus on US Private Vaults, the business, and specifically stated that it did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the individual safe deposit boxes. When it came to the boxholders, the FBI promised the judge that it would “preserve the property for safekeeping” until it could be safely returned to the rightful owners.
...
The federal lawsuits of security deposit renters whose valuables were not returned after the FBI’s 2021 raid of US Private Vaults will move forward after a court order issued late last week. Last year, Don Mellein, Jeni Pearsons, and her husband Michael Storc joined with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file two separate lawsuits demanding that the government return their coins and cash. The FBI’s raid on the security deposit box company was recently declared unconstitutional by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a separate, class action lawsuit.
“This ruling is a major step forward in holding the FBI accountable for the reckless and unconstitutional way it handled private property,” said IJ Attorney Joe Gay. “When the government seizes property, it takes on the responsibility of keeping that property safe. Don, Jeni, and Michael did nothing wrong and the court agreed that they should have an opportunity to prove their case and be made whole.”
Don rented a security deposit box to keep safe precious coins he had purchased as retirement savings. Jeni and Michael stored precious metals and cash in their box. They all were effectively forced to prove their innocence in order to keep the government from permanently taking their property. But when the government gave up on its forfeiture efforts, it failed to return 63 precious metal coins worth more than $100,000 to Don and $2,000 in cash to Jeni and Michael.
“It was frightening to have much of our retirement savings in the government’s hands when we had done nothing wrong,” said Jeni. “It was infuriating when the government gave up and failed to return everything it took. I’m pleased that the judge will let our case move forward, but this never should have happened in the first place.”
IJ’s earlier class action lawsuit shined a light on the FBI’s raid, uncovered the agency’s forfeiture motives, and showed how the FBI’s rushed inventory of hundreds of boxes could have resulted in misplaced property. The agent in charge of forfeitures testified that months before seeking a warrant for the raid, the FBI had already planned to try to take any box with property worth more than $5,000 using civil forfeiture. All told, the FBI sought forfeiture of more than $85 million in cash and tens of millions of dollars’ worth of precious metals, jewelry, and poker chips.
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?