"I'd like to see how this seriously loaded ($90MM) guy progresses through the justice system"
It won't help him if the US can seize the money - they do so whenever possible, to prevent defendants from affording a competent defence.
It won't help him if the US can seize the money - they do so whenever possible, to prevent defendants from affording a competent defence.
Do you honestly believe that proposed harm is worse for society than sham trials, where we're getting convictions simply because people can't defend themselves properly?
After you starting dealing with the 'experienced rich' you find they start becoming skilled in hiding such financial resources. It's even harder when it's an entire multi-national organization and you are not an English speaking country or China. It's the story of marrying a wealthy daughter of some incredibly wealthy family, and finding out in the divorce she only has $5000 to her actual name, and your the one who will be paying alimony to her.
Going to the root of the problem in the first place, how do these large criminal organizations even exist? It's because government law going against technological reality have created large market opportunities to exploit in the first place. Governments have created the fertile land for these creatures to exist.
To be intellectually honest about this specific case we're discussing, DPR did by definition commit most of the drug charges. Even if you believe the only morally problematic charge is 5.b of count 1 (that the defendant hired a hitman to murder a troublesome user--I do hope you find that charge problematic!), which is certainly only alleged at this point, it is fact that the Silk Road aided and abetted drug trafficking, which is criminal in the U.S.
So while I certainly agree that people need to be entitled to a competent defense (and I am glad DPR will have competent attorneys to dispute the murder charge), emphasizing the alleged nature of a criminal conspiracy that we realistically know to be largely true doesn't seem to be the best place to focus on rights of the accused. In reality, the vast majority of people wrongfully convicted are going to be the ones who can't afford competent defense. So to me this case almost raises the opposite question from yours: if the prosecution of guilty defendants is undermined by their being able to afford better attorneys than the government, and if the defense of wrongfully accused defendants is undermined by their inability to afford competent defense, then we've got bigger problems with the nature of criminal trials!
Edit: updated the article to reflect that Ulbricht is only allegedly DPR
The rest of your post I have some difficulty with. It's almost as though you're saying we don't even need a trial here because the facts are so obviously established. I don't believe it's yet been established in a court of law that any crime was committed, much less that this person committed it.
Agreed, but that would either bankrupt the government or make defense attorney a much less lucrative career and, therefore, greatly decrease the number of available defense attorneys.
> It's almost as though you're saying we don't even need a trial here because the facts are so obviously established. I don't believe it's yet been established in a court of law that any crime was committed, much less that this person committed it.
Not at all what I meant. On the contrary, I meant that cases when we the outside viewers realistically know that the defendant isn't clean are probably not the best cases for highlighting the need for a competent defense.
It should not in general be in the best interests of the federal court system to allow federal prosecutors to abuse asset seizures to prevent defendants from mounting competent defenses. Among other things, such abuses set judges up for costly appeals.
>>> It should not in general be in the best interests of the federal court system to allow federal prosecutors to abuse asset seizures to prevent defendants from mounting competent defenses. Among other things, such abuses set judges up for costly appeals.
It is very well in the interest of the prosecutors, in order to extort plea bargain. And appealing the guilty plea would probably have a very low chance for success.
So yes, "we've got bigger problems".
Certainly you're not suggesting that seizure is a valid response before they've been tried and found guilty and penalties are assessed?
Seizure is not a just way to hack the system back into a functional state.
Yes, if you believe you're going to end up in court, and having lots of money is useful for defeating charges, then yes, you should try to get money. That seems pretty simple and not worthy of enacting seizure laws.
If the justice system is so broken that people guilty of massive crimes can pay $50M and get out of charges, then THAT needs to be fixed. You're not seriously suggesting that seizure is a just way to hack around a broken system?
You may be innocent of the charges. If you are, you should get the assets back. To the extent that asset forfeiture makes that process fraught, that's a problem that deserves careful scrutiny.
I submit that I don't sound "amoral" so much as that I don't have exactly the same set of biases that most vocal people on HN seem to have. I don't start from the premise that all prosecution is unjust or malicious; in fact, I think I start from the opposite premise. So when something happens like "all the assets of a business are seized as part of a prosecution", I ask myself, "why would people who have chosen to spend a significant part of their life working at sub-market compensation to help fight crime choose to do that?" Sometimes the answers seem clear to me; in other cases, like the Carmen Ortiz-managed prosecution of Aaron Swartz, they are less clear.
[1] Social / political / judicial / law enforcement things in particular. You've argued lots of times about how things can be positively changed wrt crypto, security etc.
PS: I don't think it's bias. Your perspective is also biased; it's just differently biased than the group average here. Your perspective is welcome and often refreshing.
What I mean is, are we talking about somebody using their fortune to bribe and buy witnesses? Use their wealth to construct alibis?
Or are we talking about somebody using their fortune to hire a better lawyer than the DOJ can hire? Hire better expert witnesses than the DOJ can hire?
If all of the transactions are legitimate and all that money bought him was a world-class defense.. then I say "tough noogies" to the DOJ. Being able to afford the next Johnnie Cochran doesn't seem problematic to me; the only thing that concerns me is that poor people cannot receive a similarly competent defense.
It's incredibly cash-intensive, you effectively declare legal nuclear war and just go all out. It's virtually impossible to counter without special legislation already in place to counter exactly that sort of threat, e.g. anti-SLAPP laws.
For example, a defense lawyer could offer reduced hourly rates but include a bonus payment at the end to skew the 1:1 comparison.
In addition, party A can affect the spending of party B, which is part of what's being complained about. Because motions filed by party A can cause party B's costs to rise significantly to the point where their operation is hindered. So it most likely then becomes a race to the top, which once again will benefit the party with the larger war chest up until all assets are used up.
A set percentage of assets would feel better in my opinion, though in extreme cases it would probably still be a pretty penny.
The real problem here is that the prosecution strategy is, "prevent the defendant from exercising their rights." That is why prosecutors typically pile up the charges, to scare people into signing a plea bargain instead of exercising their right to a jury trial. Basically, these are people who think the Ox-Bow Incident was a criminal justice field guide.
When my dad was indicted by the FBI, part of the process (because he was a fugitive) was for them to seize all his funds. This was personally problematic because his funds were also my mom's funds (due to having a joint account); which left my mom very suddenly with no money, and two children (one of which, me, being a newborn).
I got the distinct impression (which I admit was based on only hearing one side of the story) that the FBI intentionally made life difficult for my mom in an effort to entice her cooperation in locating my dad (ignoring the fact that a husband who flees on the day of his son's birth to avoid prosecution from the FBI isn't necessarily in said wife's good graces).
I don't have a good answer to this problem.
I talked a little bit more about my dad's situation in a comment a while back: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3067094
Your defense, in the eyes of the law (makers?) Is fully garanteed by the State. You dont need money for top notch defense. Right?
So any meaningful proposal here isn't about actual ill-gained funds, its about alleged ill-gained funds, and that's the source of the problem.
In those cases, usually you can distinguish ill-gained funds from rightful property only after the court decision, and the presumption of innocence would require allowing the innocent to spend his property on the defence until (and if) [s]he is convicted.
Anyone rich knows that laundering money is a purchase and sale away: art, jewelry, plane, barge, etc.
As long as there are one or more parties disincentivized or unconcerned with participating in taxation, people will find ways to avoid handing over large sums of cash and "let the little people pay taxes." (Yup, that's how some view it.)
How about a large finders % fee for reporting cheats? Or would NARCing render it moot by social and business pressures?
There is a known procedure that asserts control over person's or entity's finances without actually destroying their ability to conduct business - namely, bankruptcy. So, it is possible. It can be done also for the case of criminal prosecution - the funds are controlled by independent judge which allows the payments that look like legal expenses or other necessary expenses (e.g. if the defendant doesn't have money to buy food). Of course, this can be abused too, but major cases of abuse would be caught and all involved would be prosecuted, as with any law.
So I don't see the necessity to immediately block all assets for somebody prosecuted for criminal conspiracy. I think it is done with sole purpose of making life easier for law enforcement by denying the defendant the capability to hire expensive lawyers that would insist on making life hard for the prosecution.
I agree that there is a potential for abuse, but I'm not sure I want to return to the bad old days where rich organized criminals could totally swamp prosecutors.
The Dread Pirate Roberts seems to have thought he was invincible and did not take such precautions, of course.
Another poster suggests "spending enormous amounts of money on prosecutions" to counter drug funds. This is problematic because the drug trade is massive, with the market for cocaine alone estimated at >$100B/yr; estimates indicate that the illegal drug market could account for as much as 1% of all global economic activity. For comparison the NSA's budget is about $70B/yr and the DEA is more like $25B/yr.
That would be quite the presumption.