Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootsudo | Hacker News Reader

No, most forfeiture is not returned to the victim.

Because it's not innocent until declared guilty, it's guilty until declared innocent. Forfeiture does not follow human vs USA. It's 56,000 $ VS USA.

At Airports you waive your right to search protection.

View on HN

Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. Take it to an extreme... if this can be done to anyone for no reason like you suggest - e.g. "he looks guilty, so I'll search/forfeit whatever funds I find" - then that's a major breakdown.

Assuming you are correct- and I don't know - then even if that is the case, there has to be a way to get the money back however arduous or red-tape it may be, and eventually claim damages for the administrative cost of recovery.

We're not a banana republic... yet (I hope). If they did it to him in Albania, then I wouldn't be nearly surprised or possibly at all. I've encountered corrupt border patrol officials I had to bribe to get out of a mess.. and it was in one of the Balkan countries, I won't name which.

The poster you're replying to is basically correct about how civil asset forfeiture works in the US. If you search, there are plenty of articles about similar cases.

If there's truth to it, without understanding the govt's rationale about this, it looks about as un-American and un-capitalistic as it gets.... goes against the grain of who we are as a country.

It's true, its un-american, and here's a video from John Oliver so you can learn more about this ongoing heinous practice the police use to prey on the poor and defenseless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

Yes it's true and it is very well documented. Yes it does go against what America should stand for, yet it has also been strongly defended by a whole slew of people who claim to be Patriots.

Now you understand why it's so upsetting, welcome to the same page.

Edit:

The part that most filled me with rage;

The CBP seizure notice gave the Kazazis a number of options for proceeding with the case. They could abandon the cash completely, or they could make an “offer in compromise” — letting CBP keep a certain percentage of the seized cash if it returned the rest.

I wondered about the bribery comparison above, as you aren't offering the money and aren't getting someone to do something for you, but how is that last part anything but ("If you let us keep some, we will return your money")? That whole thing seems to suggest there isn't a legitimate reason for seizing it-either they should be keeping ALL of the money, or NONE of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com