It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

page: 1
32
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Even back in the 80s when I was flying Corporate jets back and forth out of the country I was told by a friend to be extremely careful on the preflights checking for drugs because there were rumors that if some government agency (DEA) wanted the aircraft they would plant drugs which was a simple thing to do for confiscation of the aircraft. I always did a through preflight so at the time I did not think much of it... I might have been even more careful back then knowing/believing what I know now.

The article refers to the DEA but there are other agencies and departments that are in on the program that has unfortunately turned into a corrupt scam IMO..There is a fund called the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Fund, which according to the article has collected its' fair share of around 28 BILLION !

The problem IMO if they go after you and lets say you have 8000$ they claim you should not have (even though you just took it out of your own bank) unless you want to hire a lawyer and go to court you can kiss your money good bye.. Most do not bother nor can they afford the cost of fighting for and retrieval of their once owned cash..


Since 2007, the report found, the DEA has seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of involvement with the drug trade. But 81 percent of those seizures, totaling $3.2 billion, were conducted administratively, meaning no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash and no judicial review of the seizures ever occurred.



Law enforcement groups say the practice is a valuable tool for fighting criminal organizations, allowing them to seize drug profits and other ill-gotten goods. But the Inspector General's report "raises serious concerns that maybe real purpose here is not to fight crime, but to seize and forfeit property," said Darpana Sheth, senior attorney of the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law form that has fought for forfeiture reform.


Then why are 81% not prosecuted if the goal is to fight crime ? Third world countries are at least more honest.. You bribe or pay the cops to look the other way.. simple, easy, without all the high sounding legal BS.
www.washingtonpost.com... =.f58c6ff90b25
This stuff has been going on for quite awhile but it would seem the agencies have gotten their act together with regards to separating you from your earned cash... Especially if you are coming from overseas with cash for an extended vacation...

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, 31 U.S.C. 1101, requires persons knowingly transporting monetary instruments exceeding $5,000 into the United States to file a report with the Customs Service declaring the amount transported. The Government is authorized under 31 U.S.C. 1102(a) to seize and forfeit any monetary instruments for which the required report was not filed.

www.law.cornell.edu...
New report: In tough times, police start seizing a lot more stuff from people


Critics of the system also say that the increase in forfeiture activity is due largely to the profit motive created by laws which allow police to keep some or all of the assets they seize.

"It’s possible that the spike is due to a growing recognition by law enforcement of the profitability of forfeiture," said Carpenter. He notes that Congress made some attempt to rein in forfeiture abuses with a modest reform bill in 2000. After that, "elected officials stopped paying attention," he said. "The combination of low procedural hurdles, high profit incentive, and meager accountability or oversight created a rich environment for forfeiture activities to flourish."

www.washingtonpost.com...




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

S+F, my friend, you are correct.

Asset forfeiture is one of the great injustices of our time.

Unfortunately, at this point, there is not much of a chance of changing it. There is way too much money on the line.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Theres a specific reason why the fourth amendment was included in the bill of rights.


Now the justice system, courts and cops are stacked against us. What redress of grievances?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Civil Forfeiture laws allow police departments and other authorities to use "slush funds" of stolen assets so they can buy themselves fancier equipment and whatever else they want.

The fact that they can take your property without charging you for a crime, and then not even have to give it back... about as hypocritical and corrupt as it gets. And it will be upheld by the judges as well.

A very important topic - BTW I believe Trump is very pro-civil forfeiture laws



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore



A very important topic - BTW I believe Trump is very pro-civil forfeiture laws

So you're gonna be "that guy" this time.

When and where did you form your beliefs?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I wonder how much of that seized cash was, seriously, ill-gotten and how frequently then the former owner of it worked through the courts--hired a lawyer--to regain it. That would be a way to know if the program was simply a corrupt system or the DEA folks found and simple solution to relieve the drug trade of some of its easy profits.

It is quite common, to read in the newspaper that somewhere in a state away from the border that car was stopped for some traffic infraction and Lo and Behold! tens of thousands of dollars were found hidden. Of course, the drivers of the vehicle knew nothing about the cash and had no legitimate reason to have it onboard.

The hidden story in many if not all of these cases is that informants clued law enforcement on to the movement of the money and the trap was set away from the front men. Consider which is smarter: To catch the actual shipment of drugs that have zero value to the feds and in fact incur disposal expenses, or to simply nab the money?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I don't care much for John Oliver, but his piece on it pretty much nailed it
link cuz youtube upload won't work

DWCTMC?(Driving While Carrying Too Much Cash)?

edit on 4-4-2017 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky




Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime


That is NOTHING compared to the IRS!

(:

Seriously though, that is disturbing to hear - thanks for posting.

I wonder how large a percentage are legitimately filthy money though. I imagine there is a LOT of drug money etc amongst those seized. But still sketchy that it is legal..



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
What we a seeing is that government and corporations are allowed to criminally acquire money but the average person is not.

Once again our law makers fail the citizen.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

It’s possible that the spike is due to a growing recognition by law enforcement of the profitability of forfeiture


Possible? More like it is fact.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: FamCore



A very important topic - BTW I believe Trump is very pro-civil forfeiture laws

So you're gonna be "that guy" this time.

When and where did you form your beliefs?


I'm "that guy" because of my side note regarding Trump's pro-civil asset forfeiture stance?

Take a look for yourself

Trump sides with the sheriffs on their racket (Wash. Post Article from February)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
First of all, a person with any common sense will not move around or haul large amounts of cash for a legal business transaction. Most will not except it. Wire transfers, money orders, cashiers checks, bank drafts as well as a dozen or more other methods are available for a legitimate purpose.

In this modern age, if a seller will only except payment in a large amount of cash, you need to find someone else to do business with.

Buck



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: flatbush71
First of all, a person with any common sense will not move around or haul large amounts of cash for a legal business transaction. Most will not except it. Wire transfers, money orders, cashiers checks, bank drafts as well as a dozen or more other methods are available for a legitimate purpose.

In this modern age, if a seller will only except payment in a large amount of cash, you need to find someone else to do business with.

Buck
It's this kind of mentality that will usher in the new world order folks!
edit on 4 4 2017 by Naturallywired because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
On the contrary, the general public voted for the scum that passed these types of asinine laws.

I just finished a report on a local election where a city alderman was elected by 918 votes.
A very questionable individual. The district has a possible 10K voter pool with less than 5K registered to vote, yet only the "friends" of this person bothered to go to the polls.

You reap what you sow.

Buck



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Now you're that guy for providing a link that literally doesn't support your claim at all.

In fact it states in quotes

He says he would like to “look into” it


I guess that means he supports it? If you are liberal?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: flatbush71
First of all, a person with any common sense will not move around or haul large amounts of cash for a legal business transaction. Most will not except it. Wire transfers, money orders, cashiers checks, bank drafts as well as a dozen or more other methods are available for a legitimate purpose.

In this modern age, if a seller will only except payment in a large amount of cash, you need to find someone else to do business with.

Buck


First off , anyone with a little common sense would say that the ability to use cash is one of our (U.S.) last bastions of freedom and privacy. How much I carry is no one's business, but mine. Why is it ok to carry around credit cards having cash value in the thousands and not CASH ? Usually if I'm carrying any sizable amount of cash , I'm also carrying something to protect myself and my cash.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Right before the quote you cherry-picked:




President Trump, 18 days from having sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, sympathized with the sheriffs’ complaint that they are being pressured to reform civil forfeiture practices.


and right after it:




Meanwhile, however, he is for it because he assumes “bad people” are behind the pressure for reform.



Just because it doesn't agree with your view of Trump you call me "that guy" and then take a quote out of context as if it discredits my original comment. Nice try.


edit on 4-4-2017 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
That's your right, as well as your business. You get caught transporting a large amount of cash, that's your business as well.
There are just better ways of doing things that can protect you and your finances.
And, you don't need to tell me, you'll have a ample opportunity to tell all that to a judge.
Most are usually very understanding, as all day, every day, they deal with people who think the law doesn't apply to them.

Buck



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I guess fines and doing time weren't enough to pay for crimes? So what is someone going to do once they get back out of prison or have paid a fine? If a car? Walk. If a house? Be homeless. Sounds like one hell of a way to shove people right back into crime only to be locked up again and again and again each prisoner being eh around 30k a pop per year?

That's one hell of a reason to make a private industrial prison complex where none ever leave and if they do are right back in soon after.




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure civil asset forfeiture isn't constitutional.

Yeah, I know SCOTUS may have ruled on this already, but doubtful the argument against was phrased as "corruption of blood". Scalia was big on using the meaning of words at the time a document was written - "corruption of blood" was a method for the English Crown to seize all assets and estates as punishment for "high treason", thus prohibiting the passage of these things to rightful heirs, thus "corruption of blood".

ganjoa




top topics



 
32
<<   2 >>

log in

join