Civil Forfeiture

In a sensational case that's unfolding in U.S. District Court in Detroit, the federal government says it has uncovered a scheme involving a professional gambler from Southfield and two cohorts who allegedly scammed investors out of hundreds of thousands of dollars to bankroll gambling sprees in Las Vegas. Prosecutors say 50-year-old Brian Benderoff of Southfield and his two unnamed associates pulled off this scheme until they arrived at Detroit Metro Airport in June with more than $2.5 million in their luggage — most of it cash.

The federal government alleges the loot was obtained illegally.

One investor gave $125,000 to Benderoff and a cohort, thinking the money would help pay off liens on business equipment.
Another investor gave the same men $125,000, thinking the money would be used for investment in a medical marijuana business.
A third investor was allegedly duped into believing his $200,000 would be used for a life insurance-related investment.
Instead, federal prosecutors allege, this money was wired into a joint bank account controlled by Benderoff and one of his associates, and then spent at the casinos.

"Interviews with multiple investors who provided funds to Benderoff and individual 2 revealed that the vast majority of those investors had not been told their funds would be used for gambling purposes, when, in fact, they were used for such purposes," Assistant U.S. Attorney Philip Ross wrote in the court filing.

AnomanderRake wrote:Dude that is just unreal. First these poor saps get swindled by some degenerate gambling scam artist, then they get kicked in the nuts by the federal government.

How different is this really than if the police found the guy that robbed your house, along with all of your belongings, but decided to keep all of your stuff? Then they declined to comment on whether or not they would bring charges against the robber.

Also most importantly, whose Rolex watch did they seize? if they cannot find the owner I would be happy to place it under protection so that it does not fall into the wrong hands.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Dude that is just unreal. First these poor saps get swindled by some degenerate gambling scam artist, then they get kicked in the nuts by the federal government.

How different is this really than if the police found the guy that robbed your house, along with all of your belongings, but decided to keep all of your stuff? Then they declined to comment on whether or not they would bring charges against the robber.

Also most importantly, whose Rolex watch did they seize? if they cannot find the owner I would be happy to place it under protection so that it does not fall into the wrong hands.

I'm not even sure they got swindled. He borrowed $450,000 and had $2.6 milllion in CASH on him. Seems to me that he could have paid them back pretty easily if the cops hadn't stolen the money from him.


So it works out like this - he borrows the $$ - cops steal the $$ from him - Cops charge him with theft since he now can't pay the $$ back. Sounds legit to me.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I'm not even sure they got swindled. He borrowed $450,000 and had $2.6 milllion in CASH on him. Seems to me that he could have paid them back pretty easily if the cops hadn't stolen the money from him.


So it works out like this - he borrows the $$ - cops steal the $$ from him - Cops charge him with theft since he now can't pay the $$ back. Sounds legit to me.

The victims seriously can't get their money back even though the cops now have it? I'm sure it's more complicated than that. Contracts of him borrowing the money have to be legitimized, and probably a shit more legal stuff, but it seems like it has to be possible to be made whole again.

Cameron wrote:Fuck the police.

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.

Canterbury's here to defend civil asset forfeiture, the process by which police seize and keep the money and assets of citizens who are suspected of crimes. This type of forfeiture is facing bipartisan calls for reform because the police are seizing property on the basis of just suspicion, not conviction. The consequence has been the creation of massive "civil" bureaucratic process designed to grab and keep the property of people who are ultimately never even charged with criminal behavior. It is legalized theft.

Texas is looking to become the third state in the last year to abolish civil asset forfeiture, and replace it with criminal asset forfeiture. State Senator Konni Burton filed a bill last month which requires a felony conviction before law enforcement can gobble up someone’s property. It’s a major step in Texas’ fight for justice reform which has saved the state $3B (while crime rates are at record lows).

Civil asset forfeiture is a bit of a sticky wicket at times, because there are “tough on crime” groups fighting hard against it. The Federalist Society published a pro-asset forfeiture piece by then-federal prosecutor Stefan Cassella in 1997. Cassella called asset forfeiture very important because “federal law enforcement can employ [it] against all manner of criminal and criminals organizations.”

Asset forfeiture programs in the majority of states across the country suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability, leaving the public in the dark about how much property police seize from citizens and where those proceeds go, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, said in a report released Tuesday.

According to the report, 26 states have little to no transparency requirements surrounding asset forfeiture, and 14 of those states "do not appear to require any form of property tracking, leaving in doubt even such basic questions as what was seized and how much it was worth, who seized it, when it was seized, where it was seized, and why it was seized." The rest of the states aren't much better.

In recent years, there has been a bipartisan push to roll back civil forfeiture laws, which allow police to seize property suspected of being connected to a crime without ever convicting, or sometimes even charging, the owner. Law enforcement organizations say the laws allow them to target the illicit profits of drug traffickers and organized crime. However, civil liberties groups say the practice is heavily weighted against property owners, who must pay to challenge seizures in court, and creates perverse profit incentives police.

How much money police departments seize, and what they do with it, is a critical question for anyone trying to get a handle on the scope of asset forfeiture. However, while many states have passed bipartisan laws strengthening due process protections for property owners and limiting how police's ability to use forfeiture revenue to fund their departments, transparency requirements appear to have fallen by the wayside.

Cameron wrote:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-exchange-on-asset-forfeiture-is-quite-discomfiting.html

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Cameron wrote:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-exchange-on-asset-forfeiture-is-quite-discomfiting.html

When can we start the impeachment hearings?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Cameron wrote:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-exchange-on-asset-forfeiture-is-quite-discomfiting.html

When can we start the impeachment hearings?

Cameron wrote:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-exchange-on-asset-forfeiture-is-quite-discomfiting.html

Cameron wrote:Thoughts, Goose? This is your thread and you're back, I bumped it for you. I know no action has been taken yet, but surely there is enough information here to react to (beyond "let's wait and see"). You seem passionate about this issue, it happens to be near the top of my list as well. Considering Trump's fondness for stop-and-frisk, I'm not at all surprised by his feelings on civil asset forfeiture. I can't exactly articulate why, but the two policies seem related to me.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:Thoughts, Goose? This is your thread and you're back, I bumped it for you. I know no action has been taken yet, but surely there is enough information here to react to (beyond "let's wait and see"). You seem passionate about this issue, it happens to be near the top of my list as well. Considering Trump's fondness for stop-and-frisk, I'm not at all surprised by his feelings on civil asset forfeiture. I can't exactly articulate why, but the two policies seem related to me.

I disagree with him on this - but what would the Dems offer different?   They've supported this shit too.  This has been a bipartisan boondoggle.

I'm hoping that some conservatives can get in his ear on it.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I disagree with him on this - but what would the Dems offer different?   They've supported this shit too.  This has been a bipartisan boondoggle.

I'm hoping that some conservatives can get in his ear on it.

I hate to echo Nigel, but you didn't even give Trump a full critical sentence to himself. You are REALLY invested in the game, huh?

LooseGoose wrote:As I linked in the other thread Reason magazine has been all over this for years now - it's an enormous racket.

Reading these stories you keep thinking that they couldn't be happening in the US - but they are. Red State - Blue State and nearly all states. This isn't a political story - it's a government greed run amok story.

The Forfeiture Racket Police and prosecutors won't give up their license to steal.

Asset Forfeiture

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:
I hate to echo Nigel, but you didn't even give Trump a full critical sentence to himself. You are REALLY invested in the game, huh?

Well again, he's done nothing on it yet so how am I to criticize?   When he actually does something on CF there will be time to bitch and moan.   It fits what I've said all along, give the man a chance before prematurely condemning him.

My point was that historically both parties have sucked on this, it's not really a Dem or Rep issue.   There are politicians on both sides that support it and on both sides that want to end it.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:As I linked in the other thread Reason magazine has been all over this for years now - it's an enormous racket.

Reading these stories you keep thinking that they couldn't be happening in the US - but they are. Red State - Blue State and nearly all states. This isn't a political story - it's a government greed run amok story.

The Forfeiture Racket Police and prosecutors won't give up their license to steal.

Asset Forfeiture

Sweet flip flop.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Well again, he's done nothing on it yet so how am I to criticize?   When he actually does something on CF there will be time to bitch and moan.   It fits what I've said all along, give the man a chance before prematurely condemning him.

My point was that historically both parties have sucked on this, it's not really a Dem or Rep issue.   There are politicians on both sides that support it and on both sides that want to end it.

I understand that both parties have been on the wrong side of this. But one party is more "in power" right now (and hence in a better position to do something about it), and it's not the one you mentioned. Civil forfeiture is already in place, and it's up to our elected officials to take action and fix it. Does it seem like Trump is going to facilitate reform of civil forfeiture? Or does it seem like he's ready to fight anyone who would seek to defang it in any way?

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I understand that both parties have been on the wrong side of this. But one party is more "in power" right now (and hence in a better position to do something about it), and it's not the one you mentioned. Civil forfeiture is already in place, and it's up to our elected officials to take action and fix it. Does it seem like Trump is going to facilitate reform of civil forfeiture? Or does it seem like he's ready to fight anyone who would seek to defang it in any way?

I have no idea, nor do you. As I said above, let's wait and see if he does anything. I know Rand and others in Congress are working on it, the roll call will be interesting.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I have no idea, nor do you. As I said above, let's wait and see if he does anything. I know Rand and others in Congress are working on it, the roll call will be interesting.

I definitely have an idea. It seems clear to me how Trump feels about the issue, and I would expect his actions to be consistent with that. Perhaps we'll get lucky and he'll somehow get a more nuanced understanding of civil forfeiture, but I won't hold my breath.