Slashdot Mirror


Law Lets IRS Seize Accounts On Suspicion, No Crime Required

schwit1 writes: The IRS admits to seizing hundreds of thousands of dollars of private assets, without any proof of illegal activity, merely because there is a law that lets them do it. From the article: "Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up and settle the case for a portion of their money.

'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. 'They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.'" The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."

8 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Re:and they use cash businesses as examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's a bad law and i don't think it should exist but most of the examples in the article are people highly likely to be cheating on their taxes by running a cash only business and under reporting their revenues.

    Ok.

    But there are existing processes to investigate and prosecute tax cheats. Use them.

  2. Monkey see, monkey do by SpankiMonki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess the IRS saw the 2.5B dollar haul local cops have brought in since 9-11, and said "oooo look! I bet we can do that too...thanks 9-11! thanks Patriot Act!! thanks terrorists!!!"

  3. Re:Time for a revolution by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happens when bitcoin crashes? Also as you live in the USA you are subject US taxes. even if it is bitcoin. if you are not paying taxes the IRS can treat you like they treated Al capone.

    The IRS

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  4. How this is even considered legal by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since it sounds like it breaks multiple amendment in the bill of rights, to be specific the 4th, 5th, and 8th. Let's see, the 4th prohibits unreasonable seizures which this is. You'd think it breaks the 5th since that literally says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". (How is taking property with no ability to get it back not expressly prohibited by that?) Finally it breaks the 8th in my mind because "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." to me means the only appropriate punishment if there has been no crime proven is no punishment at all.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  5. Oh boy ... by golodh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    First we pass a law that is an open invitation to unintended use (like this seizure law) because it conveniently neglects to mention where it is to be applied and where it isn't.

    Then we come over all indignant when that law (which is "on the books") is used outside its originally intended area of application.

    Am I the only one who thinks that Congress is to blame here (for passing sloppy legislation), not the IRS or The Government?

    Might it not be a good idea to work harder to phrase legislation in such a way that it's difficult to abuse? Or would that cramp the style of "tough-on-crime" politicians?

  6. Re:ummmm the constitution trumps laws by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They especially can't afford a good lawyer after their assets have been seized.

  7. Living without Money by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

    I hope you were being sarcastic but it's modded 'insightful' so that's not how people are reading it! Even if you are completely innocent of all wrong doing having your accounts frozen will have a massive impact on your life. Suddenly accessing your paycheque to pay the mortgage/rent, purchase food etc. becomes impossible all you have is you cash on hand for however long it takes them to realize that you are innocent and to pay it back. That will have a massive impact on your life and to be able to do that simply because some overworked policeman has a suspicion seems highly unreasonable. In fact I'm guessing that you'll need to go to court to get the money back and who knows how you'll be paying for the lawyer or whether you can also reclaim the expenses of the court case from the US government.

    I'm all for supporting law enforcement but seizing money on a suspicion without any court oversight is just wrong. If they need to act fast then let them freeze an account for 24 hours to give them the time to go to a court and make a case for seizure. This gives them the ability to act rapidly, keeps the system open to public scrutiny and would ensure that they have some evidence before peoples lives are impacted. Why do governments find it so hard to put reasonable balances like this into laws?

  8. Re: Time for hope by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The differences between our two parties on many important issues around privacy, rule of law, and freedom of speech are mostly negligable. Both parties are pretty pathetic, if not defacto evil.