Federal Asset Forfeiture Is The Driving Force Behind Money...

Civil forfeiture Frank Regueira Dustin Dariano, MS Research Methods October 11 2015 Introduction Madinger (2011) Argued that Civil asset forfeiture is the driving force behind money-laundering today is forfeiture. The act allows the government or law enforcement officials to confiscate, sell or keep any property alleged to be involved in criminal activity without convicting the individual, massively threatens the right to own property. Speculations, allegations and suspicions of criminal activity usually are the basis of civil asset forfeiture making it impossible for the accused to plead guilty. Many stories of innocent people who have been victims of forfeiture have been told in the past. 2006-2008 saw Tenaha law†¦show more content†¦The British law referred to a judicial courts right over personal property or items including land or even marriage. The court had the ability to terminate a marriage and possess someone’s land. This law was thus incorporated to the American customs and laws governing the seizure of ships for crimes such as piracy, smuggling and treason during the early years as a republic and in the American civil war. In 1966, the law was formalized in maritime claims and in the supplemental rules for admiralty making it applicable to the civil forfeiture cases (Devon 2015). When President Nixon took over he announced war on drugs and implemented forfeiture as a law enforcer. Abadinsky (2013), argues that the main idea behind implementing the law into the war on drugs was the belief that it would strengthen the confiscation of illegal substances and means by which they are manufactured and sold. A law to authorize the forfeiture and seizure of illegal drugs was authorized and amended in 1978 by the congress. The continuing criminal enterprise act was also enacted then targeting repeat offenders of drugs as the control was allowed to ensure that it allowed the police to seize private property used in crime assets (Abadinsky, 2013). This act also allowed the accused to prove that the property was not being used for criminal activities. The burden was on the owner not the police creating a situation where the police