Guest Post – Vladimir Vinokurov: Unexplained wealth laws endanger our community

The Victorian government’s unexplained wealth law abolishes the presumption that you are innocent before proven guilty of a crime. The law should be opposed by every Victorian.

Under the new law, if police suspect you of acquiring property unlawfully, you will lose it if they apply to a Court. The law does not require police to prove their suspicions. Quite the opposite: the onus is on you to prove that you lawfully acquired your property. If you don’t keep receipts, if you paid cash, or if you don’t remember how you bought your property, or if you don’t want to undergo the public embarrassment, stress and expense of proving your innocence in court, then you are in strife.

For example, suppose that an elderly woman is stopped for speeding by police. The woman has a large sum of cash in her purse. She may distrust banks, or get paid in cash. Marijuana is found on her person. She is a recreational user. The woman is arrested. There is a reasonable suspicion that she is a marijuana dealer: she has marijuana and large amount of cash in her possession. The cash is confiscated. No charges are laid. This elderly woman now has two options. She can contest the order on the basis that she is guilty until proven innocent, or lose the money. She cannot even use the money to fund her legal defence.

This woman may not have time to prepare herself for court. She will get no notice of the application nor be entitled to contest it unless the court is satisfied that she should have that basic legal right. She will have about two weeks to give a written, sworn statement explaining whether she owns the property in question. It doesn’t matter if this information is self-incriminating. The right to silence is gone. If she doesn’t contest the order in six months, she will lose her property. She cannot elect to have a jury hear her case as with other allegations of criminal offending.

Those who deal in legal, if poorly recorded, transactions will be more vulnerable under these laws. This includes small business people or casual workers who earn money ‘cash-in-hand.’ So these laws will affect everyone but they will hit the most vulnerable hardest.

Worse, if the police reasonably suspect that you have engaged in “serious criminal activity”, it is not even necessary for them to even suspect that the property was unlawfully acquired. All your wealth and assets are up for grabs if you are in this special category of presumed offenders. It doesn’t matter if your offending has nothing to do with your property. This is simply draconian.

The government should only be entitled to take your property if it has proven at a trial that you have acquired it unlawfully beyond reasonable doubt. Anything less is state-sponsored persecution.

Vladimir Vinokurov is a solicitor and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, a party devoted to promoting civil liberties.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Guest Post – Vladimir Vinokurov: Unexplained wealth laws endanger our community

  1. Que? Source? This is legislated or introduced by regulation?

    Frankfurters move in subtle ways, then.

  2. Full detail here

    It all depends on how to identify a criminal – and the legislation already exists in other Australian states other than the ACT, where the criminals there have the ATO to hind behind.

  3. Tel

    If it’s anything like the USA, what happens is that “reasonable suspicion” is meaningless and undefined. Police can just take any wad of cash, and they don’t have to find any other evidence, nor prove anything at all. The worst that can happen from the police point of view is they may (eventually) have to give it back.

    This is just a general crackdown on cash.

    Those who deal in legal, if poorly recorded, transactions will be more vulnerable under these laws. This includes small business people or casual workers who earn money ‘cash-in-hand.’ So these laws will affect everyone but they will hit the most vulnerable hardest.

    That would be the whole intention, surely?

    Government is the friend of big business, and big banks… Hank the Handyman can go and get a job at a reputable building company, and join the bloody union while he’s at it. Who does he think he is?

  4. sfw

    Every day Victoria Police take motor vehicles from their owners and often don’t return them but destroy them. How did we come to this?

  5. Petros

    Exactly Tel.
    Isn’t this a major shift in our legal system to one like the various continental European countries based on the French system? There you have to prove your innocence rather than they have to prove your guilt.

  6. MartinG

    “The cash is confiscated. No charges are laid.”

    This seriously flawed law as it allows the police to arbitrarily presume guilt and take punitive action without oversight. If charges were laid then oversight of the police action would be restored as the matter would be forced to go to court.

    “Marijuana is found on her person. She is a recreational user. The woman is arrested. There is a reasonable suspicion that she is a marijuana dealer: she has marijuana and large amount of cash in her possession. The cash is confiscated.

    However there is nothing wrong we the police action here, provided she is charged.

    “if you don’t want to undergo the public embarrassment, stress and expense of proving your innocence in court, then you are in strife.”

    This is tough luck on her part. She has broken the law, embarrassment, stress and expense is the price we all pay when we fall foul of the law.

    The proposed law turns Victoria into a police state. It’s fundamental to all levels of our judicial system that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It seems the states find this principle a nuisance and and seek to abolish it through legislation. The federal High Court of Australia should declare such legislation incompatible with natural justice and warn the states that any case bought before it would be struck down and costs awarded to the defendant. Queensland seems to be going down the same road and it’s very worrying trend.

  7. ar

    It’s not just unexplained wealth, there has to be criminality involved as well. And not just an elderly lady speeding in her car while high on weed…

  8. DaveA

    Found it, Dec 2013

    Attorney-General George Brandis wants the Australian Law Reform Commission to find out where Commonwealth laws encroach on personal rights and freedoms

    Attorney-General George Brandis has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct a sweeping review of Commonwealth legislation to find provisions that encroach upon “rights, freedoms and privileges”.

    Senator Brandis called the review the “most comprehensive and important ever undertaken” by the Commission.

    “I have asked the commission to identify where traditional rights, freedoms and privileges are unnecessarily compromised within the legal structure of the Commonwealth. Where encroachments exist, the commission will determine whether they are justified,” Mr Brandis said.

    “For too long we have seen freedoms of the individual diminish and become devalued. The Coalition government will strive to protect and restore them.”

    The terms of reference for the inquiry are broad.

    Senator Brandis wants the commission to target Commonwealth laws that shift the burden of proof and interfere with freedom of speech, religion, and freedom of association.

    The states just don’t give a shit about rights anymore.

    Also see Naphine essentially resentencing the Hoddle St shooter decades after his trial. Changed the law to keep him in prison. He was sentenced by a judge, the option to appeal sentence was there. Public don’t speak up because they’re ‘tough on crime’ morons and assholes like Neil Mitchell get behind it to boost his ratings.

  9. john constantine

    During the christine nixon fiasco in victoria, everytime there was a funeral after a shooting in the nixon/labor/soft on crime gangland war, they had ‘one of those funerals’.

    Massive display of status artifacts and unearned wealth by the melbourne mafia.

    Flash cars, expensive suits, gangland molls dressed for the ‘killers logies’, dripping jewellery draped over designer labels.

    nixon declared that it was their right to have a funeral, and she gained intelligence from the events [nixon could have gained in intelligence mucking out a pigsty with a toothbrush].

    Educate the ‘yoof’ that easy unearned flash cash is there in buckets through crime, and surprise surprise, some will go for it.

    I would pay a bounty for information leading to proceeds of crime being re-allocated to the community. Call it the ex-wives and girlfriends fund.

  10. hammy

    This includes small business people or casual workers who earn money ‘cash-in-hand.’

    These are tax dodgers. They should not only have their cash confiscated, but should be imprisoned as well.

  11. Giorgio

    If this is introduced in NSW ,the Police in conjunction with ATO could have some fun with “he who must be obeid ” and comrades Williamson and Thompson and their families unexplained wealth ,yes right. Bye ypthe way ,what has happened to Thompson? Been put in krudds Forgetery ? “Dont push too hard guys ,they might find the skeletons in our closets ,keep it down ,the peasants will forget if we dont push it” .

  12. WhaleHunt Fun

    What a weak law. The death penalty might be a little inappropriate but seizure of assets will be ok for drug users. Dope addicts who drive are killers.

  13. iamok

    This is about the presumption of guilt rather than innocence. That’s the philosophical problem here. Victoria (where I live) is lurching more to a fascist, nanny State. And I do not like it. Soft wet Libs all around us.

  14. Tom

    Repeat after me, Hammy: I am a very naughty boy. I promise to stop trolling the Cat at breakfast time.

  15. Ant

    Have they got the guts to take Aquasure and the Labor Party to court over the Desal Plant deal, seize the Wonthaggi property and return whatever it may be worth back to the Victorian taxpayers it’s been pilfered from?

    I believe a pretext existed for its commissioning and construction: That Global Warming had caused the severe drought in the first decade of this century and that the drought conditions were “the new normal” and that no other alternative existed to protect Melbourne from water shortages.

    Two massive lies exist here. Begining with the AGW racket and ending with fact that storage dams were overlooked for not logical reason.

    Water storages are just under 80% today.

    “The new normal” was a lie.

  16. Ant

    Actually, scratch that.

    They should simply seize the Wonthaggi property and require Aquasure to prove that what taxpayers’ paid and pay for was not based on a crock.

  17. Rabz

    They are an absolute joke, but I have a feeling these types of laws have been around for donkey years, in NSW at least – “proceeds of crime” laws, I believe they’re called. Typically, they were imported from the USA. What’s also interesting is that once these types of laws are introduced, they are not so gradually ratcheted up by the pollies at every available opportunity. Thus, the grounds for seizure of assets becomes ever more tenuous and the capacity of an individual to recover those assets becomes almost impossible.

    Incidentally, that moron Jello Biafra was screeching about them back in the early nineties after they’d been introduced in the States (presumably several years before). “Property seized and sold before trial”.

    If people don’t resist this creeping fascism, they have no one to blame but themselves when they become victims of an all powerful, capricious state capable of using ever more insane, unacceptable and intrusive mechanisms to thieve assets from the citizenry. Because ultimately, as pointed out above, that’s what this is really about – the state deciding to steal everything you’ve got and you being utterly powerless to stop it (which may explain why people are hoarding cash – it’s very easy for the state to wipe your bank account in a millisecond) .

    It’s almost time for some heads on spikes*, I’m beginning to think.

    *NaDT, figuratively speaking, of course. :)

  18. Johno

    This law was brought to you by a Party that claims to be liberal!

    I note that the Victorian Electorate Commission has advised that Australia’s real liberal party – Lib Democrats- have applied for registration in Victoria. Hopefully, Victorians will have an opportunity to vote for a liberal Party at the State election, rather than having to choose between Green Labor or Labor Lite.

  19. M Ryutin

    Not that I am saying anything that libertarians shouldn’t know already, but this post is yet another reminder of how closely aligned libertarians are to the LDP but no other party in Australia that I personally know of.

    It also reminds (or should) that sticking to principle like it does -and as does the opposition to anti-bikie laws and so on – condemn the LDP and believers in its policies to fringe status long into the future in Australia. Keep working at it but there’s a lifetime of disappointment ahead of you.

    For it is a basic truth, dear Cats posters, that the general Australian voting community will never follow your views on this law, the anti-bikie laws or anything like them and sticking to them makes such party spokespeople unelectable. Whenever a true anti-racketeering law was proposed (and you would be against that too) the same result could be expected. Like those who long for a true “revolution”, idealism can be respected, but expecting the desired result can be considered politically naïve.

  20. rickw

    I have the answer: New Zealand

    Australia appears intent on becoming a socialist hell hole no matter what anyone does or who you vote for. The Liberals are actually worse than Labor, same crappy policies but better implementation.

    Ahhhh NZ’d:

    Reasonable Taxes
    Reasonable Laws
    Reasonable Gun Laws

    If you look at history, most improvements to man’s situation have not occurred by reforming an existing system (extremely difficult), but rather through people simply leaving and starting again somewhere else.

    Voting with your feet (and ultimately your money and skill) is a powerful thing!

  21. Rabz

    A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist

    CAGW, come on down!

  22. incoherent rambler

    Racketeering – add local government as a racketeer

  23. .

    M Ryutin
    #1431758, posted on August 28, 2014 at 9:28 am
    Not that I am saying anything that libertarians shouldn’t know already, but this post is yet another reminder of how closely aligned libertarians are to the LDP but no other party in Australia that I personally know of.

    It also reminds (or should) that sticking to principle like it does -and as does the opposition to anti-bikie laws and so on – condemn the LDP and believers in its policies to fringe status long into the future in Australia. Keep working at it but there’s a lifetime of disappointment ahead of you.

    For it is a basic truth, dear Cats posters, that the general Australian voting community will never follow your views on this law, the anti-bikie laws or anything like them and sticking to them makes such party spokespeople unelectable. Whenever a true anti-racketeering law was proposed (and you would be against that too) the same result could be expected. Like those who long for a true “revolution”, idealism can be respected, but expecting the desired result can be considered politically naïve.

    Wrong.

    PS

    Why do you presume that Australians are fascists?

  24. .

    Giorgio
    #1431718, posted on August 28, 2014 at 8:20 am
    If this is introduced in NSW ,the Police in conjunction with ATO could have some fun with “he who must be obeid ” and comrades Williamson and Thompson and their families unexplained wealth ,yes right. Bye ypthe way ,what has happened to Thompson? Been put in krudds Forgetery ? “Dont push too hard guys ,they might find the skeletons in our closets ,keep it down ,the peasants will forget if we dont push it” .

    Neville Wran, come on down!

  25. incoherent rambler

    Racketeering – add [your next leftist commission/tribunal/committee] as a racketeer

    e.g. HRC

  26. .

    hammy
    #1431717, posted on August 28, 2014 at 8:19 am
    This includes small business people or casual workers who earn money ‘cash-in-hand.’

    These are tax dodgers. They should not only have their cash confiscated, but should be imprisoned as well.

    Public servants who build empires are thieves and should be stripped of their superannuation.

  27. john constantine

    RICO laws.

    Sorry, but watching the melbourne mafia proudly and ostentatiously displaying their wealth and immunity from the rule of law, watching their molls strutting their version of the red carpet, that has burned out my outrage at big government taking their toys.

    for too long, an invitation to a melbourne mafia funeral was as eagerly treasured as an invitation to the AFL brownlows best and fairest awards [too much overlap in those crowds anyway]

    —- Question, what is the difference between watching ‘the sopranos’ television show, and ABC 774 ?.

    –answer, one is a media experience that glamourises organised crime, and never mentions the word mafia, the other one is a high rating american television drama.

  28. .

    Racketeering laws, which I would support the introduction of, does not mean we would have to have a reversal of the presumption of innocence.

  29. Marko

    What’s it with the LDP and marijuana?

  30. .

    What is it with the LDP and leaving people alone?!

  31. .

    An absurdity of American law is parole restrictions.

    I’ve seen on TV, and I cannot cite evidence for this properly, but American parolees being arrested for doing legal things – like drinking beer or watching (legal) pornography.

    Then we have the crazy laws for habitual offenders or third strikes for non serious laws. Then there is the issue that third strike laws may reduce other violent crimes but increase the murder rate.

    We have to do our best to avoid these well intentioned, but poorly thought out laws.

  32. john constantine

    We have drug testing for kids who get paid big dollars to play professional sport, and if they are publically revealed to have used illegal party drugs, they have their careers ruined.

    –If we have to protect the integrity of sport by ensuring that no sportie gets involved with drug organised crime, and potentially perverts the integrity of the game–

    Doesn’t it neccessarily follow that we should drug test the publically funded ABC, as high paid public employees of the abc potentially are vunerable to being sucked into the organised crime world through drug use, and could well corrupt the integrity of the public broadcaster under organised crime influence.

    Imagine a world where the abc never mentioned the world mafia, ignored the role organised crime played in the desalinisation plant rort, avoided investigative journalism peeling the scabs off melbournes unearned party wealth, and concentrated instead on 40 year old catholic abuse cases, and a shearer cutting a sheep.

  33. .

    What the unions and mafia (BIRM) get away with on Victorian construction sites is absolutely mind blowing.

    The AFP should go to town on these thugs and crooks.

  34. When our Parliamentarians submit to drug testing the same as they demand for a lot of us, then I am prepared to listen to their argument.
    Until then, they can just piss off.

  35. Bruce J

    Reversal of the usual onus of proof already applies in other area, e.g. workplace health and safety. If a person is injured in a workplace incident, the employer is guilty of the offence of not providing a safe workplace, i.e. a person was hurt so the workplace was unsafe. The onus is on the employer to prove reasonable precautions were taken and he employee contributed to the incident. How many people have effectively complained about this reversal of the onus on proof? None – it guarantees plenty of work for the ambulance chasers!

  36. Aristogeiton

    Bruce J
    #1431964, posted on August 28, 2014 at 1:49 pm
    [...]
    How many people have effectively complained about this reversal of the onus on proof? None

    Wrong.

  37. Docket62

    “It’s not just unexplained wealth, there has to be criminality involved as well. And not just an elderly lady speeding in her car while high on weed…”

    For a start, I don’t agree with the law as it stands, but let’s look at it rationally. Are we talking $1000 or $60,000? If it’s that letter then the justification exists, the former and no copper worth his salt would bother because of the paperwork involved FFS…. As to the “elderly lady” … She’s driving a vehicle under the influence of drugs, at high speed. Both are causal if she hit and killed someone and would lead to a conviction of culpable driving resulting in a lengthy prison sentence.

    In the real world, outside of the cutesy ‘what if’ scenarios, we do not live in a police state, and the bulk of the boys in blue have a pragmatic, and respectful view of all citizens. Those that are ‘known’ to the police, and find themselves in the circumstances above may well fall afoul of this law, but old ladies, speeding and high? Not likely.

    Sadly, we live in a world where said old lady is actually a drug mule, and IS running rackets.

  38. .

    In the real world, outside of the cutesy ‘what if’ scenarios, we do not live in a police state, and the bulk of the boys in blue have a pragmatic, and respectful view of all citizens.

    To an extent…and for most coppers (for whom the public genuinely appreciates).

    In the real world, good cops make mistakes and unfortunately not all cops are intelligent and not all of them are free from being overzealous or abusing their power, or having the wisdom to think about the reasonableness of their discretionary power.

  39. notafan

    Not enthused but the dude stopped at Melbourne airport yesterday on his way to jihad with $30,000 of undeclared cash, I’d like to see that seized and not returned.

  40. Rabz

    not just an elderly lady speeding in her car while high on weed…

    WTF? Could anyone seriously envision an old lady speeding if she was driving while high on weed?

    35 kmh would probably seem like warp speed.

  41. Walter Plinge

    For example, suppose that an elderly woman is stopped for speeding by police. The woman has a large sum of cash in her purse. She may distrust banks, or get paid in cash. Marijuana is found on her person.

    A good example because, of course, this happens all the time. Not.

    And on the rare occasion when it does happen what we have is a superannuated hippie dealer. LDP: soft on drugs and drug dealers.

  42. Rabz

    A good example because, of course, this happens all the time. Not.

    Rubbish, suburban drug grannies are a notorious social phenomenon.

  43. M Ryutin

    Just some information for Cats readers who mention RICO laws, racketeering and so on and for some they might want to actually look at the legislation. It can be found here:-

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96

    Some who hate the anti-bike laws ,might note certain….er.…similarities in attack. Also (not so obvious at first glance from this statute) are the heavy – mandatory – sentences for conspiracy. I would imagine that if certain Australian union heavies were facing a minimum 20 years for standing over employers it might have the same effect it has on young mobsters in the USA.

    Why they will never come here (in my opinion) is that they would capture some major capitalists which are in bed with unions (TOLL comes to mind).

    As for the “ordinary” Australian not being convinced/being fascist about heavy laws on criminals and drug/crime profiteers, let’s see eh?

  44. .

    Why can’t we design the law better? The US Bill of Rights was drafted by mere mortals, too.

  45. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1432172, posted on August 28, 2014 at 5:45 pm
    Why can’t we design the law better? The US Bill of Rights was drafted by mere mortals, too

    Like VLAD, RICO is predicated on the assumption that it is too difficult to enforce criminal laws because the group is special, so we deem a crime or aggravation to have occurred by association. The laws are illiberal and wrong. We have too many criminal laws already. Police them.

  46. M Ryutin

    Although the RICO Act can be used in many contexts, the statute is most easily understood in its intended context: the Mafia. In the context of the Maifa, the defendant person (i.e., the target of the RICO Act) is the Godfather. The “racketeering activity” is the criminal activities in which the Mafia engages, e.g., extortion, bribery, loan sharking, murder, illegal drug sales, prostitution, etc. Because the Mafia family has engaged in these criminal actions for generations, the criminal actions constitute a pattern of racketeering activity. The government can criminally prosecute the Godfather under RICO and send him to jail even if the Godfather has never personally killed, extorted, bribed or engaged in any criminal behavior. The Godfather can be imprisoned because he operated and managed a criminal enterprise that engaged in such acts. Moreover, under section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, the victims of the Mafia family (i.e., the extorted businessman, the employers whose employees were bribed, debtors of the loan shark, the family of a murder victim) can sue the Godfather civilly and recover the economic losses they sustained by reason of the Mafia family’s pattern of racketeering.

    As a practical matter, the closer a plaintiff’s case is to the Mafia scenario described above, the better chance the plaintiff has in succeeding under the RICO Act. Given the diverse factual scenarios that may confront attorneys and parties under RICO, it is always helpful to analogize non-Mafia factual scenarios to the prototypical RICO claim against the Mafia. It is always helpful to ask: who stands in the position of the Godfather, i.e., the defendant person? What is the equivalent of the Mafia family, i.e., the enterprise? This will give you a good start in evaluating the merits of any RICO claim you confront. If the facts are well-suited to the Mafia analogy, you likely have a stronger claim.

  47. Shy Ted

    Scenario 2. Police pull over a loud Harley Davidson, the rider a bikie type. He has with him his Concession Card. He’s on a DSP. Bad back. He has a small stash of “medical” marijuana in his pocket. And some pills in a little plastic bag – “pain killers” He’s just come from the gym. He’s going to pay a bunch of bills, in cash. Question. Of how many crimes is he innocent? Vladimir, you’re an idiot. You’re not protecting the innocent or upholding a longstanding legal precedent. You’re perpetuating crime at the expense of those of us who go to a legitimate job every day. And don’t crush his Harley, put it up for auction, with the only bidders allowed those who can provide proof of longstanding gainful employment and average income. Any comments on Russian plutocrats, Vlad, fool?

  48. Tel

    WTF? Could anyone seriously envision an old lady speeding if she was driving while high on weed?

    35 kmh would probably seem like warp speed.

    Ha, yeah I was thinking that, but it is a big danger to society, I mean someone in the long queue behind her will choose to hang himself before he gets to work.

  49. Tiny Dancer

    The Victorians catching up with Qld. What took them so long?

  50. .

    The government can criminally prosecute the Godfather under RICO and send him to jail even if the Godfather has never personally killed, extorted, bribed or engaged in any criminal behavior. The Godfather can be imprisoned because he operated and managed a criminal enterprise that engaged in such acts.

    I have no problem with that. Was Hitler responsible for Nazi crimes he didn’t explicitly order?

  51. .

    Aristogeiton
    #1432198, posted on August 28, 2014 at 6:28 pm
    .
    #1432172, posted on August 28, 2014 at 5:45 pm
    Why can’t we design the law better? The US Bill of Rights was drafted by mere mortals, too

    Like VLAD, RICO is predicated on the assumption that it is too difficult to enforce criminal laws because the group is special, so we deem a crime or aggravation to have occurred by association. The laws are illiberal and wrong. We have too many criminal laws already. Police them.

    To prosecute racketeering in NSW, you’d need to prosecute it as a blackmail offence, as far as I know – either unwarranted demands or causing menace. Or would it be intimidation…

    I don’t even know if it is possible.

    A specific law against racketeering would be a good thing.

    “It is illegal to demand payment for monetary gain or in kind, for services from a party under the explicit or implied threat of force, such an act constitutes the crime of “racketeering”.

    Other threats using coercion not using an explicit or implicit threat of force, but which are made with unwarranted demands using menace or otherwise shall be treated as blackmail offences.

    It is immaterial if the offence is carried out once or multiple times or for the same service.

    Anyone found guilty of racketeering faces a sentence of up to 14 years gaol and a fine of up to 1500 penalty units.”

    In the least racketeering should be added to the blackmail offences. Or you can explain how it would be enforced in NSW.

  52. Mat

    @ Shy Ted
    #1432265, posted on August 28, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    “Scenario 2. Police pull over a loud Harley Davidson, the rider a bikie type.”

    Why? What offence led the officer to the traffic stop? What did the rider do wrong?

    “He has with him his Concession Card. He’s on a DSP. Bad back.”

    So what? Are you suggesting that a back injury precludes him from riding a Harley? Seriously, they’re like piloting a well sprung armchair. If he was on a stiffly suspended sports bike – maybe.

    “He has a small stash of “medical” marijuana in his pocket.”

    Medical marijuana – so he has a prescription then.

    “And some pills in a little plastic bag – “pain killers” ”

    Over the counter, or prescription? If he’s got a script, there’s no problem. Same as if they’re over the counter – no offence committed. Next.

    “He’s just come from the gym.”

    You said he has a bad back. Rehabilitation often involves strengthening the deep abdominal muscles – the core. Never mind – keep on building that case.

    “He’s going to pay a bunch of bills, in cash.”

    So that’s illegal now? Strange, that’s my preferred payment option.

    “Question. Of how many crimes is he innocent?”

    Answer. A crime is an offence against the Criminal Code. The individual in your scenario may or may not be an upstanding citizen, but you’re talking crap.

    “Vladimir, you’re an idiot.”

    Look in the mirror.

    And, for the record, I’m an ex-copper with no love of anti-social scrotes. But I have even less time for nanny-staters who want to regulate every facet of our lives. Too many little people with God complexes.

  53. Aristogeiton

    Mat
    #1432426, posted on August 28, 2014 at 10:33 pm
    [...]
    “Question. Of how many crimes is he innocent?”
    [...]
    Too many little people with God complexes.

    Exceptional takedown of a pig ignorant comment. The question says it all; the fictitious man is called upon prove his innocence first, and the the state not to prove his guilt.

  54. Tator

    From my understanding of the SA legislation which is similar, it is not up to the individual officers to deal with but mainly dealt with by a specialist unit involving forensic accountants and experienced detectives. It would be an extremely rare occasion for a general duties member to seize any cash from someone who is not a well known criminal identity under such legislation. To be honest, it will be used rarely outside its intended purpose which is to disrupt organised crime such as OMCG’s, illicit drug syndicates and ethnic crime gangs. It’s most common usage will be for seizing large amounts of cash located during raids on drug dealers where other illicit items are located.

  55. Aristogeiton

    Tator
    #1432777, posted on August 29, 2014 at 12:06 pm
    [...]
    To be honest, it will be used rarely outside its intended purpose which is to disrupt organised crime such as OMCG’s, illicit drug syndicates and ethnic crime gangs.

    Hahahahah. You keep on thinking that, buddy:

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/proceeds-of-crime-seizure-beggars-belief-20140820-3e109.html

  56. Tator

    As I said, here in SA, it isn’t used in that manner. I haven’t seen it or heard of it, and I have been in the job for 25 years and the way the training was structured, it was intended on getting those whom major crimes are a way of paying for a lifestyle rather than the petty stuff.

  57. .

    Aristo

    I think you’re from QLD but how would racketeering be prosecuted in NSW right now?

  58. Tator

    Plus, reading that article, it is more than likely that the confiscation of profits legislation is not being used and the common law power to seize property obtained by unlawful means as evidence is being used as the confiscation legislation requires an application to a court for the final forfeiture orders to be made.
    Any property seized under this authority has to be returned to its rightful owner and if it is impossible to determine who the rightful owner is, it is liable to be forfeited to the crown especially if the defendant cannot prove that he came by the property lawfully. BTW, Vicpol stated that no confiscation of profits legislation was utilised in any of the so called allegations, whilst it is possible, the cost and time factors to undertake a formal confiscation of profits action for such a small amount is prohibitive.

  59. Aristogeiton

    Moderated. Not writing thay shit on a phone again.

Comments are closed.