Hacker News Reader

Comment by valdiorn | Hacker News Reader

In Iceland, confiscated valuables may be sold, but the proceeds must go directly to the government spending pool, to be distributed like any other government income, like taxes.

https://www.visir.is/g/202099179d (sorry, was unable to find a source in English, hopefully google translate does a decent job).

In this particular case, assistance from the Icelandic police was deemed crucial to shutting down a major Silk Road drug ring, and part of the Bitcoin funds confiscated by the FBI (355 million krona, or about $3M USD) was given to the Icelandic government. A special law then had to be approved in Parliament to enable that money to be ear-marked for cyber-crime defence.

I find it insane that funds confiscated by the police in the US can be used and spent by that police force as they seem fit. That money should clearly to into either a state of federal fund, to be re-distributed.

View on HN

Yep when you let the police keep the money they become corrupt and more focused on chasing expensive cars than criminals.

But government is just going to give as much of it as they can to their cronies who claim to have built a cyber-crime defense product "perfect for the task". That product will find more "guilty" people to seize money from.

If it was spread out to decrease everyone's taxes for the year, people who "have nothing to hide" will celebrate anything that increases civil forfeitures. Give it to charity? Same problem.

It's just a terrible concept.

This is why I will never understand my Europeans peers views on government.

How you are ok with the action, but not the result is I think what separates us and The end do not justify the means come to mind here.

Personally I think if youre stealing someone's property regardless if it goes into distributed tax coffers that benefit the public doesn't make it ok.

So, what, if you make a bunch of money selling stolen goods you should be able to keep the proceeds? Surely there are plenty of cases where assets directly involved in the commission of a convicted crime may be justifiably confiscated? Seems like you’re assuming the same flimsy conditions defined in the US’s backwards civil forfeiture laws apply elsewhere in the world.

I think you misunderstand my point and unfortunately come off as not civil in your reaponse, I'm not for civil forfeiture at all. Don't steal. I was surprised you support civil forfeiture and even have an air of mightier then thou since you believe the things stolen to go to a good cause.

You're also conflating criminal forfeiture with civil in your example.

I think question really is in what part of process the forfeiture happens.

In Europe it is after the judgement as part of it. So the tools used in crime might be taken away. A gun in armed robbery. Maybe getaway vehicle if it is used multiple times. Special tools used for breaking in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com