Cleared Of Criminal Charges But The Feds Still Want To Keep His Cash
Asset forfeiture is legalized theft -- by the government from citizens. Often these citizens are merely suspected, or even just a accused, of a crime. In this case, a man was cleared of criminal charges but the feds still want to keep his money -- $200,000 of it.
Zach Noble writes at The Blaze:
Minneapolis tobacco shop clerk Mokrane Rahim was arrested in November 2012 after undercover police purchased synthetic marijuana, also known as K2 or "spice", from his shop, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.Police found 72 pounds of a "green, leafy substance" in Rahim's apartment, along with a Mercedes-Benz and slightly more than $200,000 in cash.
The problem: while synthetic marijuana would soon be outlawed, at the time of Rahim's arrest it wasn't explicitly banned.
Legally, Rahim is now in the clear, as all charges against him have been dismissed and a judge ordered the return of his confiscated property.
But the federal government apparently plans to hold onto his money.
U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger has filed a lawsuit to allow the government to keep the money, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported; while the state of Minnesota would only be able to keep seized funds in the event of criminal conviction, the feds apparently have legal standing to keep the money because synthetic marijuana was an "analogue" of an illegal substance at the time of the seizure.
Before anyone tars him with the druggie brush, take note that there are plenty of people who've had some cash to buy a car or make another expensive purchase who've had their cash seized. (They often are told they have to prove they are innocent to get it back -- not how things are supposed to work in this country.)
In short, this time it was Rahim. Next time, it could be you.
If you can't get into fighting for civil liberties for the greater good, think of your own good.
Really, you could be next.
Yes, it's pretty stupid to keep that much cash lying around. Someone might steal it. If they are wearing a uniform, they might get to keep it.
On the other hand, life happens. I have walked down the street carrying tens of thousands in cash, on a Saturday night. For entirely legitimate, legal reasons.
You also have the additional consideration: deposits over $10k get reported to the feds, who can decide that they don't like whatever your doing. Of course, deposits of $9k don't get reported - except when they do and you get accused of "structuring" (i.e., deliberately trying to duck the $10k threshold).
Why is any of this the business of the government? Having cash isn't a crime. If there is a crime involved, it's up to the government to prosecute you for that crime. This sort of "off the books" punishment - theft - is simply an invitation to corruption on the part of the government.
a_random_guy at June 2, 2014 11:15 PM
I've written before about how the feds often seize property by filing suits against the property itself, and then winning a default judgement (because the property can't defend itself, obviously). This goes back to the beginning of the War on Drugs in the '80s. Sometimes it may be cash from a shady character, but other times it's valuable farm equipment owned by a farmer who did what a citizen is supposed to do, and called the law after he found some teenagers growing pot on a remote corner of his farm. (Big lesson learned there.) The title of the lawsuit was United States v. One Ford Tractor, and yes, the government prevailed. Heck, the tractor didn't even show up to testify on its own behalf. Must have had a guilty face.
(And by the way, if you want to get on Reagan's case about something, blame him for the War on Drugs. By far the biggest mistake he ever made.)
Cousin Dave at June 3, 2014 6:49 AM
Fuck the drug war. That is all.
Janet C at June 3, 2014 8:16 AM
What usually happens in these seizures is that the seizing municipality has already spent the funds and are unable to get all that money all at once to pay back as ordered. It's worth their time to fight tooth and nail to delay giving back the money until new budget funds are released. In addition, they're aware that the owner of the assets is going to have to pay massive legal bills to get it back, so they will receive as little as possible of the actual money.
Fayd at June 3, 2014 1:38 PM
Sounds like it is time to name the officers and other people who steal from the citizens this way.
Radwaste at June 3, 2014 9:28 PM
Fayd's description is the main reason we can NEVER win a case in traffic court, either.
I tried to fight a stop sign ticket last year, and the court commissioner's arrogant assh0le attitude alone was my reason to appeal... The appellate judges seemed to have never read my appeal, where I thoroughly bashed the commissioner, and instead created some false testimony to back up their already-formed opinion. This was for a fekking $280 fine. I'd like to take this to the county grand jury, but their office is right upstairs from the court rooms. Conflict of interest, anyone?
jefe at June 4, 2014 7:58 PM
I am sure Rahim is used to all this....after all, wherever he comes from, I am sure he has to pay the mullas and the others regularly every month lest someone plants drugs in his shop or car and then uses it as an excuse to have him executed. The govt. is just doing its bit to make him feel at home.
Redrajesh at June 5, 2014 9:04 AM
Leave a comment