Note : the government can take everything you own and prevent you from hiring your counsel of choice. The government need not conclusively link the assets seized to the crime; they can simply charge you, allege a link and take everything you own.
"The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report."“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?” The federal government does.
civil forfeiture laws by John Oliver : http://youtu.be3kEpZWGgJks?list=UU3XTzVzaHQEd30rQbuvCtTQ
The Ham Sandwich standard :
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/civil-liberties-and-supreme-court
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/civil-liberties-and-supreme-court
Dan Mitchell at CATO : http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/another-example-of-government-thuggery-and-another-reason-why-decent-and-moral-people-are-libertarians/
In its February 28 issue the Economist sharply criticized the decision in Kaley v. United States relating to civil forfeiture of the assets of indicted persons. (Civil forfeiture is applied with even less justice to individuals found with cash irrespective of provable innocent source: the police typically aver that they "smelled drugs" and the defense of unlawful search is often ignored; or else the costs of recovering assets may exceed their value.)
With indictees' seizures the defendant may have no ability to fund a defense; indeed funds in a lawyer's trust account to pay future fees may be seized. And of course refusing a "sweetheart" plea bargain can lead to a sentence of decades in prison. There have been several law review articles on the subject: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=faculty_scholarship (the law as of 1993
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/legalpub/lawreview/online/2014/9/Oliver.pdf (Kaley v. U.S.)
FATCA and the enforcement of reporting laws on foreign assets can only increase the incentive for prosecutors to allege money-laundering and to force repatriation and apply penalties. Seizures are without regard to the interests of undersecured creditors, other family members, or ,to all appearances, foreign legal rights (forced heirship, Hindu Undivided Families, foreign community property and such come to mind). There is a federal procedure for seizing, or attempting to seize, foreign assets and respect may or may not be paid to Cook Islands and similar laws: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00280.htm We know from the Marc Rich case that the DoJ monitored his whereabouts and that Rich refrained from travel to jurisdictions where he might be detained.
As of Sept. 30, 2013 the DoJ Asset Forfeiture Fund contained more than $6.38 billion, which perhaps speaks for itself in terms of becoming a profit center for government operations.
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/02fundreport/02_2.html
To the degree that non-appropriated funds are created and made available for discretionary application by political appointees and bureaucrats they become an unstoppable perk. This is something I have seen on a smaller scale in another Government department. I can't see the interests of other stakeholders, or of justice, prevailing here.
With indictees' seizures the defendant may have no ability to fund a defense; indeed funds in a lawyer's trust account to pay future fees may be seized. And of course refusing a "sweetheart" plea bargain can lead to a sentence of decades in prison. There have been several law review articles on the subject: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=faculty_scholarship (the law as of 1993
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/legalpub/lawreview/online/2014/9/Oliver.pdf (Kaley v. U.S.)
FATCA and the enforcement of reporting laws on foreign assets can only increase the incentive for prosecutors to allege money-laundering and to force repatriation and apply penalties. Seizures are without regard to the interests of undersecured creditors, other family members, or ,to all appearances, foreign legal rights (forced heirship, Hindu Undivided Families, foreign community property and such come to mind). There is a federal procedure for seizing, or attempting to seize, foreign assets and respect may or may not be paid to Cook Islands and similar laws: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00280.htm We know from the Marc Rich case that the DoJ monitored his whereabouts and that Rich refrained from travel to jurisdictions where he might be detained.
As of Sept. 30, 2013 the DoJ Asset Forfeiture Fund contained more than $6.38 billion, which perhaps speaks for itself in terms of becoming a profit center for government operations.
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/02fundreport/02_2.html
To the degree that non-appropriated funds are created and made available for discretionary application by political appointees and bureaucrats they become an unstoppable perk. This is something I have seen on a smaller scale in another Government department. I can't see the interests of other stakeholders, or of justice, prevailing here.
The ham sandwich standard economist.com
WHEN the state accuses you of a crime and seizes your assets before trial, thus preventing you from hiring the counsel of your choice, what recourse do you have?...
What would an ex-pat pensioner do if the US freezes an overseas bank account on simply a hunch she may have evaded taxes?
The US must be made to realise its tax border ends at its border.