That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Agreed.geezer wrote:Regardless of the merits of that specific plan, the idea that taking 5k out in cash (or even, according to the article, that a transaction with an *aggregated amount* of over 5K) is automagically suspicions is utterly and completely absurd.
Did they notice? How hard was their stock hit? Did the board ask for resignations? Did anything change at all besides a line item on their quarterly report? Was the fine tax deductible?Grifman wrote:I would say paying a $1.9B fine is not getting away with it.
Did they at least stop laundering money (in the same fashion)?It's getting away with it. $1.9B is a record fine but didn't cause them to skip a beat. It's a slap on the wrist. If I launder $100K I go to jail for years and am probably branded a terrorist. If I have to pay $10K instead, I'm getting away with it. They launder billions and remain in business. They got away with it. And HSBC wasn't the only bank. JPM, BoA, Western Union, etc all did it. How many tons of drugs does that represent? That's how many man-years in jail for your average urban youth?Grifman wrote:I would say paying a $1.9B fine is not getting away with it. That's fare more than any profits they made (mis)handling these funds.Smoove_B wrote:Depends on how you define "Gotten away with it". Here's HSBC settling for $1.9 billion after:Grifman wrote:Exactly which banks have laundered billions and gotten away with it? And exactly how would you be in possession of such information?
[admitting] that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."
Which is exactly my point. If a bank is getting away with it, one wouldn't know about it. And if what they did is public, it was because they were caught and fined, and hence, did not get away with it
Did anyone else read that as $1.98?GreenGoo wrote:Did they notice? How hard was their stock hit? Did the board ask for resignations? Did anything change at all besides a line item on their quarterly report? Was the fine tax deductible?Grifman wrote:I would say paying a $1.9B fine is not getting away with it.
Well, that's good news. I'll feel better traveling down the road to buy a used car or truck next time. However, on the national front http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... -business/Moliere wrote:FL passed a new law requiring law enforcement to charge people with a crime before they can seize their money, cars, homes or other property. What a concept!
Crooked cops and prosecutors in Nebraska are gnashing their teeth today. The state has taken away their license to steal cash and property from innocent people and use the proceeds to fatten their bloated budgets.
...
Nick Sibilla says:
Thought I’d share this bit of good news with you. Late yesterday Nebraska’s governor signed a bill that ends civil forfeiture! Nebraska is now the third state without civil forfeiture and the tenth to require a criminal conviction as a prerequisite in most or all forfeiture cases.
Credit where credit is due. Good job, Nebraska.Isgrimnur wrote:Boing Boing (because I don't go to Forbes)
Crooked cops and prosecutors in Nebraska are gnashing their teeth today. The state has taken away their license to steal cash and property from innocent people and use the proceeds to fatten their bloated budgets.
...
Nick Sibilla says:
Thought I’d share this bit of good news with you. Late yesterday Nebraska’s governor signed a bill that ends civil forfeiture! Nebraska is now the third state without civil forfeiture and the tenth to require a criminal conviction as a prerequisite in most or all forfeiture cases.
What the DUE PROCESS Act does:
- Provides legal representation for those who cannot afford it in administrative and judicial proceedings;
Raises the burden of proof necessary to forfeit property from a mere “preponderance of evidence”—informally understood as being “more likely than not” connected to a crime—to “clear and convincing”—the highest standard used in civil proceedings;
Restores the presumption of innocence by requiring the government to prove that owners knew about or consented to the criminal use of their property;
Establishes new timelines that better protect property owners’ due process rights;
Provides a hearing for defendants to contest the pretrial restraint of property needed to pay for counsel;
Allows the recovery of attorney’s fees if a case is settled;
Increases oversight and transparency by requiring an annual audit of federal civil forfeitures and creating two publically available databases; and
Limits forfeiture for structuring only when funds are derived from an illegal source or used to conceal illegal activity.
About time. I look forward to the crushing disappointment when someone puts a secret hold on it and it dies in the Senate.
That doesn't work if you're jonesing for your own armored personnel carrier with aftermarket AC and leather interior.Fitzy wrote:That seems overly complicated.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Oh look. They figured it out 250 years ago. Much simpler.
More baby steps in the right direction.The 2016 bill creates protections for property owners, raising the standard of proof to forfeit property to “clear and convincing evidence” and requiring authorities to give more notifications about seizures.
What could go wrong? This technology couldn't possibly be abused by cops and certainly doesn't violate 4th Amendment, innocent until proven guilty, etcThe Oklahoma Department of Public Safety has purchased several devices capable of seizing funds loaded on to prepaid debit cards to aid troopers in roadside seizures of suspected drug-trafficking proceeds.
The portable card scanners are designed to be carried in law enforcement vehicles, allow troopers to freeze and seize money loaded onto a prepaid debit card, and to return money to an account whose funds were seized or frozen.
The vehicle-mounted scanners are also capable of retrieving and storing limited account information from other cards as well, such as banking debit cards, credit cards and “payment account information from virtually any magnetic stripe card,” according to the website and patent documents of the device manufacturer, Texas-based ERAD Group Inc. ERAD stands for Electronic Recovery and Access to Data.
Yeah right. ROTFLMFAOMoliere wrote:OK: New Front in Civil Forfeiture: Authorities Get Devices to Seize Funds Loaded to Prepaid Cards
...and to return money to an account whose funds were seized or frozen.
A proposed bill would require the department to release annual reports of just how much money it takes from the pockets of low-income New Yorkers, and the NYPD claimed that following the law would be near impossible.
“Attempts to perform the types of searches envisioned in the bill will lead to system crashes and significant delays during the intake and release process,” said Assistant Deputy Commissioner Robert Messner, while testifying in front of the council’s Public Safety Committee. “The only way the department could possibly comply with the bill would be a manual count of over half a million invoices each year.”
When asked by councilmember Dan Garodnick whether the NYPD had come to the hearing with any sort of accounting for how much money it has seized from New Yorkers this past year, the NYPD higher-ups testifying simply answered “no.”
The admission by the NYPD that it has no idea how much money it has taken from New Yorkers shows just how badly transparency is needed in its use civil forfeiture, which the NYPD testified is an important tool to “remove both the incentive and the means of committing crime.”
Do you know how long it takes to count all those punch cards?GreenGoo wrote:Someone should explain what a computer is to him.
Requiring that a person at least be charged with certain crimes to justify court-ordered forfeiture of suspected ill-gotten gains, including cash, houses and other property. In some cases, property can be forfeited to benefit police and prosecutor budgets, without a charge or conviction. The bill also states authorities cannot seize cash amounts under $15,000.
If you want to get a sense of how poorly police unions grasp why the citizenry have grown more and more upset with them, check out this absolutely awful commentary by Chuck Canterbury, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, over at The Daily Caller.
...
The forfeiture program has indeed been "remarkably successful" in separating citizens from their property. The grotesque abuses of the program were what earned it so much negative attention. And property-defending attorneys with the Institute for Justice have been taking on cases and going to the press with them to help the public understand what is actually going on here.
And when the public does understand how civil asset forfeiture works, they don't like it. They really, really don't like it. Polls show that majority opposition to civil asset forfeiture cuts across all demographics. It is truly bipartisan distaste for the process of taking property from people without convicting them of crimes.
If Canterbury or anybody representing the police unions have any doubts that they're on the wrong side on this, check out the comments under his piece. No, really! At The Daily Caller, a significantly conservative site, there is not a single commenter defending Canterbury's position.
The new law will require prosecutors to provide “clear and convincing evidence” to a judge that property they want to seize is connected to criminal activity before they can seize it. That means either it was used as part of a crime or that it was acquired with proceeds from criminal activity.
Moving in the right direction unless you live in Idaho. Apparently the police there are pure as the wind driven snow, except when they're not.Paingod wrote:I'm glad you're posting these when they crop up, and that there seems to be more a movement to correction than not. This practice is one that amounts to basic legalized criminal activity by the police. Break into your house, steal your stuff, refuse to give it back - but hey, you're free! All of it needs to be ended. Complete. Bullshit.
Just about the same time the federal income tax reaches $0.80 on the $1.00, and the social security qualifying age is raised to 85.Paingod wrote: Maybe someday it will end.
I believe that they seized a computer that hand QuickBooks on it. One company was called personal, the other was called Drug's and Shit Inc.. They were able to verify the funds this way.Paingod wrote:Wait, so only $9,000 of the $12,000 she had was involved in criminal activity and the other $3,000 went back to her? Did that $3,000 squeal on the other $9,000 in exchange for leniency? WTF? It's either drug money or it's not.
Punisher wrote:I believe that they seized a computer that hand QuickBooks on it. One company was called personal, the other was called Drug's and Shit Inc.. They were able to verify the funds this way.Paingod wrote:Wait, so only $9,000 of the $12,000 she had was involved in criminal activity and the other $3,000 went back to her? Did that $3,000 squeal on the other $9,000 in exchange for leniency? WTF? It's either drug money or it's not.
https://www.truthmonitor.com/2017/04/tr ... -doing-it/There are no mixed feelings. The war on drugs created the cartels. The war on drugs gives the police an excuse to go after everyone. The war on drugs gives the police an excuse to steal property without even requiring any conviction let alone a drug related conviction.em2nought wrote:Definite mixed feelings on this asset forfeiture
The only thing conflicting me is not being sure I care about it being taken from a foreigner. lol Oh, and the whole building a wall instead of laying a minefield in a day from the air(liberal judge proof).Moliere wrote:There are no mixed feelings. The war on drugs created the cartels. The war on drugs gives the police an excuse to go after everyone. The war on drugs gives the police an excuse to steal property without even requiring any conviction let alone a drug related conviction.em2nought wrote:Definite mixed feelings on this asset forfeiture
I'd settle for voter picture ID, and moving lots of our military bases to the border instead of places like Camp Lejeune, NC. If we spend more than the next eight countries combined on our armed forces every year, they should be able to take care of our borders with what they have already.hepcat wrote:Yup, kids stumbling onto land mines and losing limbs or even dying is high entertainment, eh?
Hopefully this is an act you put on because you think it's funny.
