DEA seized $3.2 billion since 2007. Most never charged with a crime.

[Chris0nllyn]

Over the past 10 years, forfeitures through the Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program have grown to over $28 billion.

We focus primarily on the activities of the DEA because it was responsible for 80 percent of the Department’s cash seizures from fiscal years 2007 to 2016. Of those DEA seizures that resulted in forfeiture, 81 percent were forfeited administratively. These forfeitures totaled approximately $3.2 billion during this 10-year period.

First, we found that 85 of the 100 seizures occurred as a result of interdiction operations at transportation facilities, such as airports, parcel distribution centers, train stations, and bus terminals, or as a result of a highway interdiction or traffic stop. All but 6 of the 85 encounters or situations that led to interdiction seizures were initiated on the observations and immediate judgment of DEA agents and task force officers absent any preexisting intelligence of a specific drug crime (the remaining six were based on preexisting intelligence).

Second, the DEA could verify that only 44 of the 100 seizures, and only 29 of the 85 interdiction seizures, had (1) advanced or been related to ongoing investigations, (2) resulted in the initiation of new investigations, (3) led to arrests, or (4) led to prosecutions. When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1702.pdf

 

[This_person]

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1702.pdf

Is it $3.2B or $28B?

According to the Department, it has returned more than
$4 billion in forfeited funds to crime victims since fiscal year (FY) 2000 and has
provided over $6 billion to state and local law enforcement through equitable
sharing during the same period

Within 60 days after the date of seizure, the agency must provide
notice to possible claimants of the government’s intent to forfeit the property. If an
individual contests the forfeiture by filing a claim against the property,
administrative forfeiture proceedings are terminated, and the government has
90 days to proceed with a civil or criminal forfeiture action or return the property
and initiate a forfeiture action a later date.

Only 20% (give or take, depending upon where in the 74 pages you look) were ever challenged. Doesn't that seem odd? Why would an innocent person, who had their cash seized, not complain?


Seems like a pretty ####ty process. It seems like the IRS, where you owe what they say unless they decide they messed up, and they adjudicate what they owe you back. But, it also seems like a relatively accurate process, since only 20% ask for their money back, and only 39% of those who ask get it back (in full or in part), which means only 8% of people who had property seized were adjudicated to have been wronged. Eighty percent don't even ask. Don't. Even. Ask. Why?

 

[glhs837]

Only 20% (give or take, depending upon where in the 74 pages you look) were ever challenged. Doesn't that seem odd? Why would an innocent person, who had their cash seized, not complain?


Don't. Even. Ask. Why?

Simple. Intimidation. They explain quite well that

A) We are the freakin US Government, with entire squadrons of lawyers bought and paid for and with nothing better to do than pack a courtroom full to the rafters.
B) You are an individual, with not even close to enough resources to fight us.
C) If you are stupid enough to try anyway, remember you own other stuff, and if you struggle, we'll come after that too.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Is it $3.2B or $28B?

Only 20% (give or take, depending upon where in the 74 pages you look) were ever challenged. Doesn't that seem odd? Why would an innocent person, who had their cash seized, not complain?

Seems like a pretty ####ty process. It seems like the IRS, where you owe what they say unless they decide they messed up, and they adjudicate what they owe you back. But, it also seems like a relatively accurate process, since only 20% ask for their money back, and only 39% of those who ask get it back (in full or in part), which means only 8% of people who had property seized were adjudicated to have been wronged. Eighty percent don't even ask. Don't. Even. Ask. Why?

The whole program (DOJ) collected $28B, the DEA alone seized $3.2B.

Let's say you had $5k in cash (you were buying a car, or gambling, or any other legal thing) seized because they thought it wasn't made in a legal manner. The money (not you) goes to civil court (where there's no public defender) so you need to now hire a lawyer. By times it's all said and done, you end up making nothing because you've had to pay your lawyer $5k in fees.

In other cases, the govt. will come back and say, "hey, if you let us keep half, we'll settle this without going to court, and without needing to get a lawyer." The govt. has unlimited funds and resources to fight it. Most people do not. In addition, they are typically forced to sign a disclosure form to not sue the police after they get their money back.

One example from VA:

He also would be stripped of $17,550 in cash — money that he had earned through the Smoking Roosters, a small barbecue restaurant he owned in Staunton, Va. Stuart said he was going to use the money that night for supplies and equipment.

The reason for the police stop: Stuart’s SUV had tinted windows and a video was playing in his sightline. He was never charged with a crime, and there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But police took his money because they assumed it was related to the drug trade.

Palizzi and his partner searched the car and found large bundles of cash in a brown paper bag. Palizzi told Stuart and his girlfriend they were taking the vehicle into the station for a more thorough search. According to a record of the stop, he gave them a choice: They could be left on foot at a highway exit or go with police.

A more intensive search of the vehicle at the station turned up only a few flecks of marijuana: 0.01 gram. It was in the bottom of a bag holding DVDs that were there to entertain Stuart’s four kids when he drove them around.

As for the suspicious yellow straw, it turned out to be from a Capri Sun juice pouch that one of his kids had left behind.

More than two hours after stopping Stuart for driving with tinted windows, Palizzi tore off a piece of note paper, wrote down the amount of money he had seized — $17,550 — and gave it to Stuart as a receipt, along with his car keys and phone. And they let him go.

Last year, prosecutors changed their position and offered to return half the money as part of a settlement. Stuart refused and Stout arranged to take the case before a jury.

In addition to returning his $17,550, the government had to pay Stuart’s legal fees: an additional $11,825.40. Uncounted is the cost to taxpayers of the government’s effort to keep the money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/in...ought-the-law-who-won/?utm_term=.90f857416d30
*Note, there's other cases in this article.

This guy won, but had the govt. not paid his lawyer fees, it would have made more sense to take half the money offered originally because he'd end up with a little over $5,700.