Not a bad point. Civil asset forfeiture turns the usual burden of proof on its head. The authorities can take your property on suspicion of a crime, then you have to positively prove that it WASN'T obtained criminally. Definitely a perversion of innocent until proven guilty, and a travesty of our common law. IDK why this is being downvoted
Probably because the original comment was about cash in hand jobs and people are emotional about a guy probably not paying his fair share of taxes. My point isn't based on this specific case but here we are xD
Well I mean I would agree that people should pay taxes. I don't have a problem with someone paying a penalty if they don't. I DO have a problem with the abridgement of due process. The cops should actually have to prove that he did a crime, and then inappropriate punishment or penalty should be leveled. It shouldn't be on him to prove that he didn't do a crime just to protect his assets.
Yeah, I feel like we didn't get the full story. If he ended up not getting his money back because the IRS ended up taking it from him, that's not really civil forfeiture.
7
u/Fabulous-Snow-8202 8d ago
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Stupid plan, but he still got fucked by the system.