Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlexandrB | Hacker News Reader

I thought civil asset forfeiture was limited to drug crimes. What the hell is "depriving the company of his “honest services” during his seven years of employment"? This sounds like they're accusing him of slacking off too much. Is this even a felony? Why is civil asset forfeiture being applied to what seems like a civil matter that should be resolved via lawsuits?

View on HN

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/former-seattle-entrepreneur-an...

>The government’s seizure of the funds in 2020 was related to an FBI investigation into Carleton Nelson’s role in arranging Amazon real estate transactions. The investigation has not resulted in any criminal charges against him. In an ongoing civil suit, Amazon alleges that Carleton Nelson and a colleague conspired to receive millions of dollars in kickbacks in exchange for directing Amazon Web Services data center deals to a Colorado real estate developer. Carleton Nelson denies the allegations.

>In a joint motion filed in federal court in Virginia, the Nelsons agreed to forfeit almost $109,000, while the government agreed to return the remaining $525,000 in seized funds.

“Would you like no money until we change our minds or you find a way to hire a lawyer (with no money to do so) and maybe win against us in court in a few years and after having used up most of the potential proceeds in attorney’s fees, OR just sign here and we’ll skim 20% and call it even”.

Protection racket.

The bloomberg article says their assets were frozen rather than than forfeited (although I don't know whether there's a difference), and it was over kickbacks/fraudulent real estate contracts or something like that.

Civil "in rem" forfeiture says that the asset is a guilty party to the crime. It applies to any asset that is involved in any crime.

I see it often in cars taken and sold from people with traffic violations.

That's the problem. Assets can't commit a crime. They aren't people, or even corporations. Yes, maybe a court will determine after conviction that $XX is ill-gotten gains and require the convicted defendant to turn over that money. But stealing before a conviction just on a whim? This has got to stop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com