This sounds so far fetched that you should really cite the local UK paper and article if you make a comment like this.

It's got all the hallmarks something made up to incite anger and opinion. A believable yet outragious "fact" from a newspaper followed by a conclusion that any reasonable person would make. This gives the "fact" more credibility because of how we rationalize things.

I'm not prepared to dox myself for this, so ... whenever I see a drug story where they state numbers I calculate the yearly 'wage' they're getting for their prison sentence and often it's more than £30k. AFAICT they're getting much more, because they often get out early.

First from the list in my local paper for "drug gang 'ordered to repay'" (censored):

>A Proceeds of Crime Act hearing was told K and E had benefitted to the tune of £55k each.

>The pair appeared in $place Crown Court from custody and were told by Judge $judge to repay <£1k ea. within 30 days or face an extra 7 days in prison.

>$Y members of the gang who made nearly £200,000 were forced to hand over just over <<£10k between them. //

The next story is headlined about paying back £6k from £180k taking; these are both stories from the last 6 months.

The drugs in the stories are mostly cocaine and heroin in my UK location.

That is indeed strange. But one must always keep in mind that the media often gets the law wrong - whether it is the specific crime they were indicted for or the reasoning for a judgement. But, I cannot tell here. It just seems strange.

My naive read is that $500k is an estimate of their profit over X time period, likely based on the $50k restitution over Y time period, which is the conduct they’re actually charged for.

The reason for the discrepancy is simple: the government can only relcaim money connected to what they indict you for — not all the crimes people suspect, but can’t prove; in contrast, a newspaper is free to speculate “Well, if a month long sting caught them doing $50k, then they did like $500k/yr!”

You can get similar estimates if the government catches them with unsold drugs, and the paper reports how much money they would have made selling it. Again, a reasonable estimate of their cash flow, but sensible the police seize the drugs rather than money they haven’t earned yet. (And can’t seize past money, if not connected to a crime.)

I don’t have specific citations, but I’ve seen both in local papers over the years.

In Britain, you actually can. This is a result of the "criminal lifestyle" provisions; once the government has proved that you've made money from an ongoing course of criminal activity you then need to specifically show that your assets were legally acquired, or they're subject to forfeiture.