Comment by m0nastic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by m0nastic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm sympathetic to the idea that "ill-gained funds" shouldn't be accessible to a defendant for their defense; but it does pose some moral problems.

When my dad was indicted by the FBI, part of the process (because he was a fugitive) was for them to seize all his funds. This was personally problematic because his funds were also my mom's funds (due to having a joint account); which left my mom very suddenly with no money, and two children (one of which, me, being a newborn).

I got the distinct impression (which I admit was based on only hearing one side of the story) that the FBI intentionally made life difficult for my mom in an effort to entice her cooperation in locating my dad (ignoring the fact that a husband who flees on the day of his son's birth to avoid prosecution from the FBI isn't necessarily in said wife's good graces).

I don't have a good answer to this problem.

If the funds had been proven to be ill-gained, then the defense would already be over (since proving that funds are ill-gained both requires proving the crime and proving that the funds came from the crime.)

So any meaningful proposal here isn't about actual ill-gained funds, its about alleged ill-gained funds, and that's the source of the problem.

The law assumes funds can only be used for comfort and running away.

Your defense, in the eyes of the law (makers?) Is fully garanteed by the State. You dont need money for top notch defense. Right?

Feel free to tell us more, if it isn't too personal. Sounds like an interesting life-story.

It's not really germane to this discussion; I was just giving an example of the fact that it can be tricky for the government to seize assets in a prosecution (considering the fact that it can be difficult to de-complect where funds come from).

I talked a little bit more about my dad's situation in a comment a while back: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3067094

I agree that there are no good answers, and that there is a huge potential for abuse here.

How do you differentiate a criminal spending ill-gained funds from an innocent spending his rightful property?

In those cases, usually you can distinguish ill-gained funds from rightful property only after the court decision, and the presumption of innocence would require allowing the innocent to spend his property on the defence until (and if) [s]he is convicted.

If you're on the bad side of the law, have a few hundred G's buried in the woods somewhere as a legal defense fund.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com