How do they determine the property is the result of illegal activity if the owner of the property has yet to be convicted of illegal activity?
That way of thinking opens up our current problems of police seizing everything within grasp during an arrest or traffic stop claiming the property is the result of illegal activity. "Hello, I pulled you over because it's late at night and I'm wondering if you're okay. Oh, you happen to have $10,000 in cash on hand? Drug money, I'll take that."
If this is the way the law is being interpreted then we gave up property rights a long time ago.
Are you asking how the government can prove that the money in Silk Road's accounts are the proceeds of illegal activity? They have digital records all over the place to prove that. The magic of Bitcoin and the internet--where all activity is neatly recorded in server logs with timestamps. They can prove that without proving that Ulbricht is the one that engaged in the illegal activity. Indeed, Ulbricht's contention is precisely that.
Does a fee collected for helping with illegal transaction is by itself illegaly obtained money?
If you are a cab driver and you have a client that you know is riding your cab to perform illegal trade. Does the police have right to seize your fare?
The courts do decide this. They have decided this.
For assets to be forfeited the government literally sues the property[1] and is required to show the item is subject to forfeiture. If the asset is eligible for forfeiture the owner can claim that they are innocent[2] and prevent the property from being forfeited.
In this case DPR is not claiming that the wallet is his. Because if he did he'd likely harm the criminal case against himself.
Note how the government filed suit against "all assets of Silk Road" - not DPR.
This isn't some secret thing that only the government knows about. You can go to http://www.forfeiture.gov right now and read required notices of forfeiture for all sorts of assets.
--
[1] This is how we get court cases with fun names like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" and "United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola"
That said, my understanding is yes, if you know that the purpose of the travel is illegal, then you are aiding and abetting. If they can show it to a "preponderance of evidence" standard, they have the power (not "right") to seize your fare. If they can show it beyond a reasonable doubt, they have the power to punish you as well.
As rayiner mentioned previously, the preponderance of evidence standard is actually not terribly out of place here, being that disputes about ownership of property are generally settled that way.
And yes, it is something for a court to determine.
A hotel owned by someone who has no criminal record or charges is being seized because some of its guests have used it to commit their crimes.
Edit: Seems like the Judge ended up dismissing this specific attempt but the key to take away from this is that the government will try and also sometimes win such cases.
Well, to a degree. That was a bigger grab, since (at least as far as I can see in the article) they did not allege - much less demonstrate - that he had knowledge of any specific instances of criminal behavior.
In some circumstances, it's legitimate - "Yeah, I'll be getaway driver for your heist for $X..."
The allegation there was that he knew about these activities and was turning a blind eye to profit from it. And as you note, the government didn't win there.
Material goods are neither innocent nor guilty. Like rayiner explained, the phrase doesn't apply here. The bitcoins are not on trial and can't be convicted and sent to jail.
You realize that DPR/Ulbricht is specifically disavowing ownership of that wallet, right?
And the government has said, "Hey, if you own this wallet, which we have tied multiple controlled buys to, you're more than welcome to claim it, or we'll sell it. We might want to have a little chat to you about it, though."
Ross said "Nope. Not mine." He relinquished all claim to it, so his innocence or conviction is irrelevant.
Ideally, if you can convince a court there's a reasonable chance that the property was legally obtained (using income you legally earned), and that it wasn't purchased with the intent to primarily use it for illegal activities.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean you're definitely guilty. But if it seems reasonably likely (to the judge, or better the jury) that something was legitimately purchased for legitimate reasons, it should be yours.
Campervan fitted out as a mobile meth lab? That should get seized. The house your kid sold drugs from, but is your primary place of residence, and you paid for it with legally obtained money? That should be yours.
The problem is, US police forces seem to want to seize anything that's remotely connected with illegal activities, to raise revenue.
In general, civil forfeiture abuse is rampant and blooming in the US, especially given the financial incentive to perpetrate it and the lack of proper safeguards. That way of thinking you describe is already open and that's exactly what happens if the police suspects you are not going to give them a good fight (i.e. is poor or alien or live far away or something of that nature) and/or the money or the property would be worth less to you than the cost of the fight, and they have chance to keep the money (in some jurisdictions, they do not). This is exactly the way the law is interpreted right now. Just google the numerous cases of civil forfeiture abuse and despair.
However, in the case of SR they actually may have a pretty good case that those are money intended to buy drugs, etc. - it's not like SR ever hidden what they're selling and the buyers hid what they are buying, and looks like the law enforcement has these records. So since under the current law drug trade is a crime, and they would have absolutely no trouble proving the money is actually the drug money, in this case it is hard to classify this as abuse, at least without venturing into the whole topic of drug legalization and so on, which is beyond the point.
Honestly, I think we should just burn (the value of) the assets seized (after trial, appeal, &c, of course).
Yes, it would mean stepping up and funding things currently funded with proceeds from seizures, but it would remove significant incentive to overreach.
Destroying resources just because criminal touched them seems pointless. Removing financial incentive for abuse seems reasonable, but that does not mean resources should be destroyed. They can be routed to the uses which have no connection with law enforcement and do not provide abuse initiative. US government has so many needs one can surely find one.
In case it wasn't clear, I don't mean physical destruction of real things. I mean auctioning the physical, and then destroying the received money electronically.
With a fiat currency, it's not actually destroying anything. I'd rather no one feel it as part of their bottom line, or there will be pressure. Certainly, moving it far from law enforcement would be an improvement, but I think destruction is better.
But why it is better if the same resource could be used to make something good - e.g. build a hospital for the poor or feed some starving people, etc.?
Because I don't want anyone looking at a spreadsheet and saying, "Oh shoot, we could actually meet our targets if only the police would seize another $10 million..."
Putting that person further away from the police probably improves things, as I said, but better that we just build such hospitals and fund such social programs as we actually need, and not rely on people doing bad things (either the people whose stuff is being confiscated, or the police confiscating property of innocents) to make it happen.
Note again that at this scale cash isn't really a resource - it's a claim on resources. Destroying it doesn't destroy those resources, it releases the claim which winds up sort of distributed over other dollars.
because incentives distort actions. if what is seized is destroyed of value, then there is no longer any motivation to view seized property as some sort of fund raising drive.
That's why separation of incentives from actions is important. If the police has no control over the money and can not benefit from it, they do not have incentive for abuse. The hospital which will get the money may have, but they won't have the means.
That way of thinking opens up our current problems of police seizing everything within grasp during an arrest or traffic stop claiming the property is the result of illegal activity. "Hello, I pulled you over because it's late at night and I'm wondering if you're okay. Oh, you happen to have $10,000 in cash on hand? Drug money, I'll take that."
If this is the way the law is being interpreted then we gave up property rights a long time ago.