Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is why someone who has assets confiscated can make a claim (with a very low burden of proof) to get them back. People here are making it sound like that doing this is incredibly difficult or expensive but it's really not.



The Christian rock band raising money for a Thai orphanage[1] was a slam dunk, in terms of this so-called "low burden of proof", but it still took them two months to get their money back.

(Edited to add: I just realized they didn't actually get their money back. They got a check. Yep. You can generally cash those for free if you have a bank account.)

Imagine the situation of someone whose circumstances are less clear, or who can't otherwise afford to stay in one place and fight the seizure for however long it actually takes.

What happens to the person who just had all of their money taken away?

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/months-after-53-00...


Depriving someone of their property – even temporarily – and forcing them to spend otherwise profitable time making a claim to get it back is a form of damage. What you're proposing would allow agents of the government to damage people as frequently as they wanted, with impunity.


You realize you can be arrested and held in jail before a trial right? That's exactly same thing as confiscating assets pending a trial.


You didn't mention a trial in your previous post, but rather a low standard of evidence to "make a claim". In that scenario, the burden of proof is on the victim of the property seizure rather than the accuser, which makes it different IMO.


The burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture trials (and there is a trial) is still on the plaintiff. It is not on the victim.


False, at least in the US. The government's case is considered to be against the property, not against you. The standard of legal proof is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assets [are only] returned if [the] owner proves [his/her] innocence". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... for details.


"preponderance of evidence" is still a burden on the plaintiff. It's just a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".


In practice in the United States it's been shown to present little to no burden. These cases have been widely covered in the press. Again, see the link.


only for a short period of time before getting to address a judge


That's actually not true at all. You can be held in jail for months pending completion of a trial depending on your ability to make bail and the seriousness of the crime in question.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: