Attention

All comments are subject to approval by Moderators. Any off-topic comments will be rejected. Thanks for your cooperation!

Thursday, July 20, 2017

The Feds Just Expanded Civil Asset Forfeiture 'Laws' Nationwide

When you're a government agency, asking for a tax increase is always a hassle. As Ryan McMaken notes, for the most part, taxpayers don't like taxes, and if asked if they want to pay more, they're likely to often say "no." Moreover, when public officials pass tax increases, they may face the wrath of taxpayers at the ballot box. For this reason, governments are always looking for ways to get revenue without having to use tax revenue.

One such 'hidden' method of seizing wealth from the taxpayers is through what is now called "civil asset forfeiture."

This occurs when a law enforcement agency seizes the assets - including real estate, cars, cash, and other valuables - from private citizens based merely on the suspicion that the person has committed a crime with the assets in question. No due process is necessary. No conviction in a court of law need occur. While it is technically possible to sue a government agency to reclaim one's possessions, this requires immense amounts of time and legal fees to pursue. Needless to say, civil asset forfeiture has become a lucrative source of income for law enforcement agencies. And, over the past 30 years, the practice has become widespread.

As Martin Armstrong detailed, between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989. Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. Now, according to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses.

More

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Moral of story- we spend more than we take in taxes. Thanks, bush and obama!

Jim said...


I cannot understand how it is that this has not been challenged successfully to the Supreme Court.

It seems grossly unconstitutional on its face.

"Innocent until proven guilty", remember?

Anonymous said...

Limelight Lewis will be getting a fleet of Harleys now.

Anonymous said...

This is something that someone like the ACLU should challenge. The average person who has been abused by an asset seizure generally does not have the funds to take a police force to court. Lawyers typically won't handle it as they aren't likely to "earn" themselves a large payout as they would in other cases against police.
Makes you wonder if there is a way to avoid this by putting ownership of your property into a trust or an LLC?

Anonymous said...

Hey, why can't Mr Make America Great Again do something about this?