Indiana police have dogs that sniff specifically for cash at the US’s 2nd biggest FedEx hub, then they simply keep the money

eu.indystar.com Indiana police use state law to steal money without cause

This isn’t crime fighting. It’s an actual crime — a blatant, naked theft carried out by officers, Libertarian Party Chair Evan McMahon writes.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13145612

(edit) Would someone please ship some counterfeit money through there and get it confiscated, so the police can then be investigated for spending counterfeit money?

A Boring Dystopia @lemmy.world

M0oP0o @mander.xyz

6个月前

Indiana police have dogs that sniff specifically for cash at the US’s 2nd biggest FedEx hub, then they simply keep the money

eu.indystar.com /story/opinion/2024/08/13/marion-county-asset-forfeiture-treats-cash-transfers-as-crimes/74777122007/

253 23

THE POLICE PROBLEM @lemmy.world

octopus_ink @lemmy.ml

6个月前

Indiana police have dogs that sniff specifically for cash at the US’s 2nd biggest FedEx hub, then they simply keep the money

eu.indystar.com /story/opinion/2024/08/13/marion-county-asset-forfeiture-treats-cash-transfers-as-crimes/74777122007/

192 14

Cashless society, forced banking, and the War on Cash @slrpnk.net

activistPnk @slrpnk.net

6个月前

Indiana police have dogs that sniff specifically for cash at the US’s 2nd biggest FedEx hub, then they simply keep the money

eu.indystar.com /story/opinion/2024/08/13/marion-county-asset-forfeiture-treats-cash-transfers-as-crimes/74777122007/

17 4

您正在查看单个对话串。

104 评论

Indiana law requires any assets seized in a civil forfeiture case to go directly to the school fund — likely to mitigate the moral hazard and incentive to steal citizens’ assets — but little money is actually going to that fund. Instead, police departments are keeping it for themselves, and a 2019 Indiana Supreme Court case upheld that, allowing police, prosecutors or private lawyers contracted to carry out the cases to keep a minimum of 90%.
Naked corruption.
Something similar happened to me. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) seized money from a bank transfer paying rent to my landlord (years ago). It took five days of calls to the bank to find out why the transfer didn't go through. I got a case number and filled out paperwork disputing it (with OFAC) and the letter I received in response said they had no record of the case.
The best I could hypothesize what happened was that because my landlord had a Middle Eastern-sounding name, maybe this was suspected to relate to terrorism. I gave up. I knew it wasn't worth my time to pursue because to get justice, I'd have to invest more time and energy than the cash was worth. I nearly got evicted because of this shit and I still judged the bureaucracy too great to address (I think I made the right choice; no sense fighting the government unless my freedom is on the line or it's some huge sum of money).
I got money orders at the post office and deposited them directly into my landlord's bank account after that. Huge pain in the ass to make sure my money went where I wanted. I live in a building owned by a corporation, now. I don't think I'd rent from a private citizen again because of that bullshit. (It's not like I'll ever own a home, given that I like living in the Bay Area.)
- Since it’s a small amount of money, the legal process would be with small claims court. You don’t need a lawyer for that. Small claims is cheap and easy going. It’s typically under $100 to file (which you get back if you win) and in some states a registered letter is sufficient to serve the other party.
  You would not want to sue OFAC though. In this case you would ideally keep a paper trail of your payment attempt and carry on. Give your landlord the proof of payment (attempt) and wait for the landlord to act against you. That’s the easiest.. you wait for the court date and show up with proof of your attempt to pay and a copy of your landlord’s payment procedure (which you followed). OFAC apparently did a money grab on the landlord, not you, so you would come away clean so long as you paid as per your landlord’s instructions.
  
  That's not going to work for long. Best you're going to get is a stay until you pay. Might as well make it right with the landlord while you actually do take OFAC to small claims court. Because they'll find it then.
  But also, this is what your Congress critter is for. All kinds of things get magically resolved when the congressional office of the honorable so and so makes an inquiry.
  
  That’s not going to work for long. Best you’re going to get is a stay until you pay.
  Hold on. Who are you saying OFAC took the money from, the tenant or the landlord? You can’t have it both ways. The tenant complied with the terms of the contract to send the money as directed. OFAC targeted the landlord. A court would not have impose a higher expectation than following contractual obligations.
  I could see if a check got lost in the mail, where the result is that the defentant retains possession and constructive use of the money, then a court would have enough descretion to rule fairly. But the OFAC case is not that case.
  
  That's not how contracts work. Unless the contact specified using that avenue, the only thing that matters is payment received.
  But really I think this all smells because OFAC doesn't actually seize money right away. They freeze it, so it gets deposited but you can't do anything with it. Which would mean it got the land lord's bank account but that account was frozen.
  For the money to get pulled into a different account, to actually be seized would mean they had definitely blocked this guy from dealing with Americans. In which case everything, money, buildings, company, is now frozen.
  
  That’s not how contracts work. Unless the contact specified using that avenue, the only thing that matters is payment received.
  You apparently believe OFAC took the money from the sender, not the recipient despite targeting the recipient. A court is not going to say that a payer owes money they already paid and must pay again in duplicate despite a government action to take money from the recipient. I have my money on the tenant prevailing in this case. Since OFAC targeted the recipient, the money likely would have left the sender’s bank and landed in the bank of the recipient. At that moment, the money is on the other side of the wall and outside of the sender’s control. The sender did not hire the recipient’s bank. The money grab would have happened after the money landed in the recipient’s bank. A sender cannot be responsible for a recipient’s bank paying their client.
  If OFAC were some ransomware/cyber criminal gang running out of Nigeria, I would agree (as it’s not a government confiscating money from a recipient).
  If I say in my contract: pay me by stashing cash under a rock at location X, and the payer complies, and then a bypasser takes the money, that’s a problem for the (foolish) person who drafted the contract that way. The drafter of a contract has a higher responsibility to flaws in the text of the agreement than the party who merely agrees to the contract.
  For example, the US specifically has a law that states the benefit of ambiguity in contracts goes to the party who did /not/ draft the contract. This rightfully encourages contract writers to be diligent.
  Otherwise you are left with penalizing people for faulty contract terms that they did not draft.
- "I don't think I'd rent from a private citizen again because of that bullshit."
  And this is where they won.
  
  Yes, handily.
- That’s wild!
  You ever check OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals list for your landlord?
  Two plot twists that come to mind: landlord was actually ISIS with a great cover story, bank manager stole the money and made up a case number.
  
  Tbh strictly speaking the bank probably shouldn't have told him anything about the OFAC intervention, they're not supposed to tip off in these circumstances - so it could well have been a made.up number.
  
  It’s really annoying that @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org just took this on the chin. For me even a dispute over $100 would be worth the courtroom battle just to satisfy my curiousity of what happened. A landlord cannot evict without a court procedure, so the tenant would not have to spend a dime on court costs and bring the paper trail to the court. From there, since the banks (all 3 involved) did a shitty job of investigating, they could have been named as 2nd party defendants (sue them all, let the judge sort it out). The investigation should have revealed the bank where the money landed and the actual bank account from there. They could then use the court to subpoena the agency that has “no record of the case”, but who the bank says has the money. If there is no case, then they can return the money (a judge would say).
  OFAC obviously benefitted from someone’s court phobia even though the tenant had nothing to worry about.
  
  Yeah, well my mental health was a greater priority as I was in a shitty place for a number of years. I'm not here to be a crusader when I'm barely staying alive. (That time of my life has happily been in the rearview mirror for a while now.)

104 评论