Definition of Asset Forfeiture and the Role of Police
Asset forfeiture refers to the process by which a state seizes an individual or group’s assets, most often assets either used in criminal activity or procured as its result. According to the US Depart of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program, asset forfeiture in the United States is employed in order to enhance public safety and security by seizing assets with the potential to aid criminal behavior. Cases in which assets are confiscated will usually involve terrorism, drug offenses, and other criminal activity. In the United States, forfeiture cases are divided into civil and criminal cases. Civil forfeiture cases, making up around half of all asset forfeiture cases in the US, occur when the government sues the asset itself, rather than its owner. The government must then prove that the asset was rightfully subject to confiscation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Civil forfeiture procedure begins with the confiscation of the property and a mailed notice from the FBI or DEA (depending on the logistics of the case) to its owner. The owner can generally file a claim with the seizing agency within 35 days in order for the case to go to court. After the owner files a denial of the allegations involving his or her confiscated property, the case may proceed in court. In civil forfeiture cases, the role of the police is to make the initial confiscation of the property. Alternatively, criminal forfeiture is carried out in the United States as a punitive act against a criminal. After the criminal case ends in conviction, the court may choose to seize property as an extended punishment. The assets seized by the government in both civil and criminal forfeiture cases are recycled back into the law enforcement organizations, used to fund further forfeiture cases or expanding police presence in affected areas.
History of Asset Forfeiture
The fundamental ideas behind asset forfeiture are not a product of the modern age. As far back as pre-Christian Greek and Roman society the principles of asset seizure, particularly in cases where the asset has been used to further criminal activity, had long been in place. During the early Roman Empire, property of citizens who openly opposed and advocated against the ruler was often confiscated by civil authorities. In the development of early English law, inanimate and animate objects involved in criminal proceedings were subject to the same ‘punishment’ as is seen in modern civil forfeiture cases. Under these laws, any asset that was said to have caused a fatality could be subjected to forfeiture. This happened through one of two methods: either the property was seized, or its value was calculated and given to the king. Historical interpretations of forfeiture law in America was based in these early English laws. According to a paper published by the Regent University Law Review, civil forfeiture became an increasingly popular and widespread form of litigation during the Civil War and Prohibition Era. The use of civil forfeiture during the Prohibition Ear directly mirrors its widespread use, beginning in the 1980s, as a weapon in the war on drugs. Two prominent pieces of legislation define and interpret asset forfeiture in the United States. First, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), also known as the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, dramatically expanded the rights of the government and law enforcement agencies in situations involving ongoing criminal organization. While not the primary goal of the Act, its focus on anti-money laundering procedures involves an expansion of the police’s ability to seize property believed to be involved in ongoing criminal activity. Prior to the Act, the government had been legally unable to take control of assets not used directly in crimes. Under RICO, the government now had a right to take control of everything purchased with the proceeds of crime and all related goods and assets of the criminal. The second primary law involving the government’s right to asset confiscation is the Patriot Act, signed into law by former President George W. Bush in October of 2001 and extended by President Barack Obama in May 2011. Under the stated goal of preventing anti-US terrorism, Title VIII of the Patriot Act allows police and relevant authorities to confiscate all foreign and domestic assets of those believed or proven to be involved in terrorist activities. This is in addition to the ability of law enforcement to seize assets that may potentially be used in future acts of terrorism.
Asset forfeiture refers to the process by which a state seizes an individual or group’s assets, most often assets either used in criminal activity or procured as its result. According to the US Depart of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program, asset forfeiture in the United States is employed in order to enhance public safety and security by seizing assets with the potential to aid criminal behavior. Cases in which assets are confiscated will usually involve terrorism, drug offenses, and other criminal activity. In the United States, forfeiture cases are divided into civil and criminal cases. Civil forfeiture cases, making up around half of all asset forfeiture cases in the US, occur when the government sues the asset itself, rather than its owner. The government must then prove that the asset was rightfully subject to confiscation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Civil forfeiture procedure begins with the confiscation of the property and a mailed notice from the FBI or DEA (depending on the logistics of the case) to its owner. The owner can generally file a claim with the seizing agency within 35 days in order for the case to go to court. After the owner files a denial of the allegations involving his or her confiscated property, the case may proceed in court. In civil forfeiture cases, the role of the police is to make the initial confiscation of the property. Alternatively, criminal forfeiture is carried out in the United States as a punitive act against a criminal. After the criminal case ends in conviction, the court may choose to seize property as an extended punishment. The assets seized by the government in both civil and criminal forfeiture cases are recycled back into the law enforcement organizations, used to fund further forfeiture cases or expanding police presence in affected areas.
History of Asset Forfeiture
The fundamental ideas behind asset forfeiture are not a product of the modern age. As far back as pre-Christian Greek and Roman society the principles of asset seizure, particularly in cases where the asset has been used to further criminal activity, had long been in place. During the early Roman Empire, property of citizens who openly opposed and advocated against the ruler was often confiscated by civil authorities. In the development of early English law, inanimate and animate objects involved in criminal proceedings were subject to the same ‘punishment’ as is seen in modern civil forfeiture cases. Under these laws, any asset that was said to have caused a fatality could be subjected to forfeiture. This happened through one of two methods: either the property was seized, or its value was calculated and given to the king. Historical interpretations of forfeiture law in America was based in these early English laws. According to a paper published by the Regent University Law Review, civil forfeiture became an increasingly popular and widespread form of litigation during the Civil War and Prohibition Era. The use of civil forfeiture during the Prohibition Ear directly mirrors its widespread use, beginning in the 1980s, as a weapon in the war on drugs. Two prominent pieces of legislation define and interpret asset forfeiture in the United States. First, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), also known as the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, dramatically expanded the rights of the government and law enforcement agencies in situations involving ongoing criminal organization. While not the primary goal of the Act, its focus on anti-money laundering procedures involves an expansion of the police’s ability to seize property believed to be involved in ongoing criminal activity. Prior to the Act, the government had been legally unable to take control of assets not used directly in crimes. Under RICO, the government now had a right to take control of everything purchased with the proceeds of crime and all related goods and assets of the criminal. The second primary law involving the government’s right to asset confiscation is the Patriot Act, signed into law by former President George W. Bush in October of 2001 and extended by President Barack Obama in May 2011. Under the stated goal of preventing anti-US terrorism, Title VIII of the Patriot Act allows police and relevant authorities to confiscate all foreign and domestic assets of those believed or proven to be involved in terrorist activities. This is in addition to the ability of law enforcement to seize assets that may potentially be used in future acts of terrorism.