Civil Liberties

Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem

After the tumultuous Attorney Generalship of Eric Holder, what the country badly needs is a replacement who will uphold the law fairly and guard against injustices perpetrated by the government. President Obama’s nominee to replace him, federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is questionable in that regard because of her enthusiastic embrace of civil asset forfeiture, which often deprives perfectly innocent people of their property.

In an editorial published November 22, “Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot,” the Wall Street Journal revealed that during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture cases is that they frequently inflict severe losses on people who have only the most tenuous connection with a crime – or even no connection at all. (For some very distressing examples, see my September 12 Forbes article.)
........................
Bi-County sells candy and snack food items to small retailers on Long Island, but, disfavored as such things may be by the Washington elite, that business is entirely legal. There has never been any allegation of any wrongdoing by the company or its owners, but they were under suspicion because of many cash deposits of less than $10,000. Under IRS regulations, banks must report cash deposits of $10,000 or more, but the feds look at substantial deposits of smaller amounts as grounds for suspicion, thinking that the depositor must be trying to avoid detection.


Now, if Ms. Lynch’s office had bothered to inquire about Bi-County’s business, they would have found that it is clean. But they did not bother to inquire. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can take money (or other property) and then dare the owner to battle through legal obstacles to get it back. To do that, the owner must prove innocence.
Charge someone with a crime and the burden of proving guilt is on the government, but confiscate property under civil asset forfeiture and the government keeps the spoils unless the owner is able to prove his innocence. That is not the way our system of justice is supposed to work.
........