The Legal Fiction Of Civil Forfeiture

Civil forfeiture is a component by which law implementation offices can seize and keep the property or cash when the property/owner is associated with a wrongdoing. As opposed to criminal Forfeiture, where a property is taken simply after

Crime and violence is rampant throughout the world. Laws exist to maintain order and peace and provide for the safety and well-being of all members of society. Acts that disrupt and threaten this system of order are deemed criminal in nature and are punishable by law. It is believed that criminal types operate from a self-centered framework that shows little, if any regard, for the safety and well-being of others (Merton, 2006).

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

As Shaila Dewan stated in her article from the New York Times; “Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize”. The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire in recent months, amid a spate of negative press reports and growing outrage among civil rights advocates, libertarians and members of Congress who have raised serious questions about the fairness of the practice, which critics say runs without thinking or caring about the opinions, rights, or feelings of others over due process. (Nov. 9, 2014).

White-collar crimes are just as prevalent today as ordinary street crimes. Studies show that criminal acts committed by white-collar criminals continue to increase due to unforeseen opportunities presented in the corporate world, but these crimes are often overlooked or minimally publicized in reference to criminal acts on the street. Many street crimes are viewed as unnecessary, horrendous crimes because they are committed by lower class citizens, whereas white collar crimes are illegal acts committed by seemingly respectable people whose occupational roles are considered successful and often admired by many (Piquero, 2014). These views often allow white collar crimes to “slip through the cracks” and carry lesser charges or punishment.

The criminal in this particular case, Mr. Steven Palladino, manages an ice cream store in his neighborhood of West Roxbury and as such is a widely trusted man. The trust he obtains be founded from having been born and grown here as well as having his entire family as the mascots for his fraudulent enterprise. Having studied finance and finally making his way successfully through college to become a registered stock broker, he makes use of his social status to start in the pursuit of a Ponzi scheme under the appearance of Viking Financial. On the flip side, his investors seem to have unwavering trust in him despite the location of his office, a small space above his ice-cream shop, where their investment is worth millions. Besides this, they disregard police appearance and possible warnings on their investment manager, Palladino’s lavish lifestyle, and fail to look at his record of unethical practice. Finally, they lose most of what they had, while Palladino receives an extended late jail term (CNBC PRIME,

Even though civil forfeiture is a practice that happens all around the United States, it is a system that many say the police are able to abuse for their own profit. There have been numerous cases where many individuals have been locked in legal battles with the United States government trying to prove that their assets are indeed innocent and not involved with any crimes. Many feel that the civil forfeiture is a form of “policing for profit” especially since many of the assets are used under the Equitable Sharing Program. (Crawford) police can stop motorists, possibly under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and "analyze" the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant,

Most everyone goes home after a long day of work and watches the news. Think, what is usually reported? The weather, local activities, headline news, or daily criminal activity. Shootings, stabbings, homicides, etc. are all discussed by media anchors these days. This causes most everyone in our society to become familiar with crimes that are considered street crimes. What most people don’t hear about on the news is what is considered white-collar crime, sometimes known as corporate crime. White-collar crime not only is less reported in the media but also receives weaker punishments than street crime. This paper will first discuss the similarities between the two types of crime and then explain why their punishments are strongly

The question before our society is not whether corporate crime is a victimless crime, rather the question is what should be done about it? Corporate crime doesn’t just do harm to the investors that can be unknowingly damaged by these crimes, it has a much more insidious nature to it as it has done harm on global scales. Corporate crime is almost a misnomer because many of these criminal wrongdoings are for the most part legal, when not taken to their ultimate conclusion. Society within the United States has been taught that the man in the brief case, yelling at other men in dark coats on the flow of the stock exchange are the smartest guys in the room. This paper will attack that idea on many levels, the first salvo will be

In pursuit of the war on drugs, changes had been made to the nature of law enforcement and prosecution. Law enforcement have now been more empower with these new policies seem to have diminish civilians rights, such policies gave law enforcement power to violate third and fourth amendment. “Using general warrants, British soldiers were allowed to enter private homes, confiscate what they found, and often keep the bounty for themselves. The policy was reminiscent of today’s civil asset forfeiture laws.”(Balko, R, 2013) The civil asset forfeiture statute is an asset seizure of possessions that are alleged proceeds from criminal activity. Criminal activity over the decades had developed and more organized. Criminals would get their mandatory minimum sentence and the crime enterprise would just continue, but legislators’ passed a statute to dismantle entire criminal organizations and it’s known as Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations or R.I.C.O. Passed in 1970 it was used in the prosecution of Sicilian mafia in New York city. Instead of prosecuting criminals individually such as solders and capo, it was effective in shutting down entire criminal organizations. R.I.C.O statute appeared to be effective on the war on drugs. The combination of the two policies provided incentives to battle the war on drug. Assets were disseminated among various law enforcement departments, putting more officers on the streets, obtaining newer police vehicles and countless equipment for law

Modern American CAF derives it’s roots from the policies used by police and prosecutors during the time of alcohol prohibition. Law enforcement during early 20th century would often use civil asset forfeiture against the cars, guns, money, and other property of the people who were busted smuggling liquor. Although alcohol prohibition died 80 years ago with the passage of the 21st and the repeal of the 18th amendments, the most common usage of CAF still lies within the realm of enforcing prohibition laws. Civil asset forfeiture is primarily used to fight drug crimes, especially narcotics trafficking (Van Den Berg, 873). Since the passage of the 1970 Comprehensive Drug Reform Act civil asset forfeiture has been expanded by law enforcement in order to meet the additional billions of dollars of strain that the war on drugs places on the budgets of city and county law enforcement agencies around the nation (Ann- Yu Chi, 1639).

This bill now requires a criminal conviction for “unlawful manufacture or cultivation of any controlled substance or its precursor” before any law enforcement agency can utilize asset forfeiture to recover the expenses of seizing, destroying, or taking any remedial action related to the controlled substance. [Health and Safety Code § 11470.1(c)]

White-collar crime poses a vexing problem for the criminal justice system (CJS). It is an

In 1939, American sociologist Edwin Sutherland introduced the phrase “white-collar crime”. White-collar crime is a nonviolent crime committed by a business or large corporations. They are usually scams or frauds to gain wealth in society. The people who are guilty of this crime lie, cheat and steal from investors of their company or business. Even though these crimes are non-violent, they have major impacts on the society. Their companies become non existent and families get destroyed. All of their life savings and savings for their children get taken away, and they become bankrupt. Not only does it affect their families, the investors who believed in their business lose millions or even billions of dollars.

From the standpoint of the criminal, the ideal white- collar crime is one that will never be recognized or detected as a criminal act. (Radzinowicz 325-335) Corporate Crime Corporate crime is the type of crime that is engaged in by individuals and groups of individuals who become involved in criminal conspiracies designed to improve the market share or profitability of their corporations. ( Siegel 338) Corporations are legal entities, which can be and are subjected to criminal processes. There is today little restriction on the range of crimes for which corporations may be held responsible, though a corporation cannot be imprisoned. The most controversial issue in regard to the study of corporate crime revolves around the question of whether corporate crime is "really crime." Corporate officials, politicians, and many criminologists object to the criminological study of corporate criminality on the strictest sense of the word. The conventional and strictly legal definition of crime is that it is an act, which violates the criminal law and is thereby punishable by a criminal court. From this perspective a criminal is one who has been convicted in a criminal court. Given these widely accepted notions of crime and criminals, it is argued that what is called corporate crime is not really