Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ...
by int_19h on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @04:04PM
(#11865195)
Because this being a civil case, the legal standard is "balance of probabilities". In other words, if they can give a convincing explanation of how your money is likely to be tied to some criminal activity, so long as it's "more likely to be true than not true", they win - unless you offer a convincing rebuttal to make it less likely.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ...
by morgante on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @04:29PM
(#11865394)
Here's the part which I don't understand: if it's a civil case, why do they get to seize the property before proving anything?
If I open a civil proceeding against you, I can try to prove that you owe me $5k and if I prove that to the appropriate standard you can be compelled to provide me with $5k. I can't hack your bank account, withdraw $5k, and then open a civil proceeding to retroactively legitimize my robbery.
The whole system is a massive violation of due process, no matter what legalese you try to use to justify it. If you're allowed to take people's property and then retroactively sue them if they complain, what is even the point of having the Fifth Amendment?