High Society – Forfeiture: Scapegoat Theft?

Once in a while they take BAD people’s things away, but “the history of property forfeiture” is mostly INNOCENT people’s stuff being taken. Note also, when the locals are cut in on the action, it seems to get worse.
The original story on the news regarding the seized house:


CC article about witch-hunts:


The sources to the following information can all be found in this thread in the discussion forum:


Saturday, June 14, 2003

Ottawa to seize grow-op houses

One home taken for the first time in B.C., nine others targeted

Matthew Ramsey
Vancouver Sun

For the first time in B.C., the federal Crown has seized a home used by the owner as a marijuana- growing operation and Surrey Mounties are vowing to go after at least nine other homes in the city.

The $439,000 house was officially forfeited to the Crown June 11 when Bich Ngoc Vu pleaded guilty to production of a controlled substance in Surrey Provincial Court.

Surrey RCMP spokesman Constable Tim Shields confirmed Friday that Vu’s sister’s home next door at 10859 166A St. has been restrained by the Crown (meaning it cannot be bought or sold) as Ngoc Thi Nguyen awaits her trial for allegedly running a growing operation in that home.

Both homes were raided March 4 by members of the Surrey RCMP drug section. They found a sophisticated 397-plant grow-op inside Vu’s home that included a hydro bypass, surveillance cameras and a motion-detection system designed to shut off the hydro bypass as anyone approached the exterior meter.

Vu was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking, theft of hydro and production of a controlled substance. The possession and theft charges were dropped, but Vu was sentenced to a 12-month conditional sentence on the production charge. The forfeiture of the house at 10865 166A St. was included in her plea agreement.

Vu is also co-owner of two Abbotsford properties. Nguyen owns additional property in Langley and Surrey and is listed as co-owner of two more homes in Vancouver. The grow-op found in Nguyen’s home contained “hundreds” of plants, Shields said.

Shields said the forfeiture of the home marks a first in B.C. law enforcement and is only the second time in Canada a home has been seized as a proceed of crime related to a grow operation. The first seizure took place April 30 in London, Ontario.

The Surrey home is in fairly good shape for a former grow-op because the grow itself was mostly confined to the unfinished basement, Shields said.

The Surrey seizure could not have taken place without the cooperation of the federal Crown and the federal Department of Justice, Shields said.

An additional nine homes used for grow-ops in Surrey (including the one owned by Vu’s sister) are now under restraint, the first stage of the forfeiture process. The homes range in value between $300,000 and more than $400,000.

For privacy reasons the addresses of the eight homes cannot be released until a forfeiture decision is made after the owners go to trial, said Lise Cantin, director of communications for the Department of Justice B.C. region.

Shields said the ability to seize homes from owners using them as grow operations is a powerful new tool in the police arsenal.

“Grow-ops are all about profit — that’s the reason for their existence and this move has taken the profit out of grow-ops,” Shields said.

Revenues from sales of forfeited properties are divided between the province and the federal government on a case-by-case basis, depending on the allocation of resources to make the forfeiture, Cantin explained.

Sergeant Chuck McDonald of the RCMP proceeds of crime section said that if property is seized as a result of work by the provincial Crown, revenue from the sale of that property goes to the province. If the property is seized as a result of worked by the federal Crown, the revenues go to the federal government.

Unlike the U.S., Canadian police do not get a share of the revenue, nor do cities such as Surrey that fund their own police.

“We’re not happy about that at all,” said Surrey councillor Gary Tymoschuk. “That money should come back [to the municipality that funds the police doing the work].”

The City of Surrey pays for 90 per cent of its RCMP policing budget, while the federal government chips in the remaining 10 per cent.

Tymoschuk said he would like to proceeds of crime revenue sharing reflect the funding formula. On May 26 Surrey passed a motion asking the federal government to return at least a portion of proceeds of crime revenue. That motion has been forwarded to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, but Tymoschuk is not optimistic.

“Chances of [achieving a]90-10, I’m reluctant to say — it’s probably not that likely,” said Tymoschuk.

Bill C-24, passed Dec. 18, 2001, modified forfeiture law in Canada to allow the Crown to seize all property used in committing a crime. Under the old regulations, the government could only forfeit property if it was built or modified in order to carry out the crime.

Shields said the new legislation makes it “somewhat easier” to seize offence-related property, but it is still a very time consuming and labour intensive process. The nine restraint orders in Surrey and the forfeiture of Vu’s home have only been possible because Surrey RCMP has allocated two officers to work full-time on investigations into proceeds of crime connected with grow operations, said Shields.

Earlier this month, 29-year-old Sanjeev Singh Gill had to forfeit a small $150,000 warehouse space he used to produce methamphetamine. It took a year and a half to convict Gill and then convince a judge, in a separate hearing, that the Crown should get the warehouse.

Vancouver police Constable Sarah Bloor said city police have yet to seize a home used by the owner as a grow-op because the resources and time required to go about doing so are prohibitive. However, she said, the deterrent value of the tactic is clear.

“It certainly could have an impact on the proceeds that go into criminal acts,” Bloor said. “We would always be interested in trying.”

David Pitts, who lives in the same affluent Fraser Heights neighbourhood as Vu’s home, said the threat of having to forfeit one’s home for having a grow op inside it is certainly a deterrent, but the government could conceivably go further considering the profits associated with growing marijuana can be astronomical.

“One good crop would probably pay for it [the home],” said Pitts. “There’s big money in it. Obviously that’s why they [growers]are willing to take the risk.”

Pitts believes the financial impact will have to be heavier than just the home if marijuana grow operations are to be curbed.

“Maybe just take the house the first time,” Pitts said. “If they do it again — house and contents.”

Police executed a search warrant Friday at a home in the 17000-block of 104A Ave. where they found 493 marijuana plants and arrested two Vietnamese women and three Vietnamese men. A two-year-old infant in the home at the time of the raids is now in care of the Ministry of Children and Families.

Shields said RCMP intelligence indicates that Vietnamese gangs and the Hells Angels are now working cooperatively “to a certain extent” on marijuana grow-ops.

In March Surrey RCMP estimated there are between 3,500 and 4,500 marijuana grow operations underway in the city, most of which are associated with organized crime rings.


Grow-op owner forefeits house to Crown


Friday, June 13, 2003

A $439,000 house in Surrey has been forfeited to the Crown after a woman was convicted of operating a 397-plant marijuana grow operation inside it.

SURREY — The RCMP in Surrey says it’s a first in B.C.

A house worth $440,000 has been forfeited to the Crown after a woman was convicted of operating a marijuana grow operation inside it.

RCMP spokesman Tim Shields says the house was raided on March 4 and police found a sophisticated grow-op with almost 400 plants.

There was also a hydro bypass, surveillance cameras and a motion detector that triggered a switch that would shut off the hydro bypass if someone approached the electric meter.

Shields says it’s the first time in B.C. and only the second time in Canada that a house has been forfeited to the Crown in relation to a grow-op.

Nine other houses in Surrey may also end up in the Crown’s hands for the same reason.

© Copyright 2003 Canadian Press

It’s important to understand that there are two bases upon which real property may be forfeited. The first is if the property is “offence related property”, which means, in the context of real property: is “built or significantly modified for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a designated substance offence”. This is a very high threshold, and generally requires that the functionality of the house has been altered to accommodate the grow op. There have probably been fewer of these cases than you have fingers on your hands.

The other basis for forfeiture is if the property is the result of proceeds of crime. In this context, it doesn’t necessarily relate to the grow op itself, but how the property was acquired. This is the likely basis for the seizure of the house in this story. This would arise in a situation where someone with no income lives, inexplicably, in a nice house without a mortgage.

In other words, the number of plants does not necessarily have anything to do with the basis for the forfeiture. I was involved in a case several years ago where a guy forfeited farmland he had acquired with proceeds of crime, even though the land itself was vacant and had no connection with his grow op.

Even if police charge the owner of an alleged residential growing operation, they say it’s not financially worth their trouble to pursue seizure and forfeiture proceedings unless the owner has a substantial finances invested in the property.

Calder said homeowners need about $60,000 in equity to make forfeiture worthwhile.

“Once a property is seized, the seizing agency is then responsible for heat, hydro and property taxes,” he explained.

Sunday, April 01, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal


1500 B.C. — Moses tells the Israelites that God has decreed, “If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten.” — Exodus 21:28. This declaration is thought to be the genesis of Western asset forfeiture law.

Interestingly, there was a stipulation in Deut. 13:18 which forbid retaining the scapegoat’s property.

Around 325 CE, Constantine – the first Christian Roman emperor – began to confiscate or destroy the property of the less dogmatic sects (15) as Jesus predicted the scribes would do (16). As early as Irenaeus, (130-200 CE), accusations concerning “secret sacraments” began being leveled at Gnostic branches from the Roman Church. (14)

(14) “Sex, Drugs, Violence & the Bible”, Vol. 2, pp. 206
(15) “Green Gold”, Chris Bennett, 1995, Access Unlimited, p. 366 – see also “Sex, Drugs, Violence & the Bible” pp. 213-214
(16) Luke 20:46-47 – as quoted in “The Emperor Wears No Clothes” by J. Herer, 1998 edition, p.75

Asset Forfeiture History

Forfeiture has been used, literally since ancient times, to take property wrongfully used or acquired. References to forfeiture in the Old Testament1, Greek2 and Roman3 law indicate that its purpose was to exact a penalty against property which had been used or acquired in connection with some type of prohibited conduct.
1Exodus 21:28: “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall surely be stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.”(back to document)
2Aeschines, quoted in O. Holmes, The Common Law(1881): “[W]e banish beyond our borders sticks and stones and steal, voiceless and mindless things, if they chance to kill a man; and if a man commits suicide, bury the hand that struck the blow afar from the body.”(back to document)
3 7 Twelve Tables 1, translated in 1 Scott, The Civil Law, 69 (1932): “If a quadruped causes injury to one, let the owner tender him the estimated amount of the damage; and if he is unwilling to accept it, the owner shall . . . surrender the animal that caused the injury.”(back to document)

1215 A.D. — British nobles force the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. Among other things, the document declares that fines cannot deprive a free man of his livelihood.

Even inferior felonies, those that did not require the death penalty, subjected the offender to fines that might include the forfeiture of goods and chattels [Eden, 1771:41]. Such statutory forfeitures were a major source of revenue for the Crown [Maxeiner, 1977:773]. For example, fines were frequently used as a penalty for assault [Beattie, 1986:456-457]. Increasing the number of offenses considered felonies gave the lords greater opportunity for gain.

However, it remained in the king’s interest to extend the list of offenses considered treasonous, since his coffers benefited [Pollock and Maitland, 1968, Vol. 2:500]. The dispute over forfeiture versus escheat continued on into the fourteenth century. Lords were alarmed that the king was calling so many offenses treasons, thus causing them to lose their escheats [Simpson, 1986:20]. In some cases the king did not return the land to the lord after a year and a day, producing additional consternation. The distinction between high and petit treasons established in 1352 solved the problem satisfactorily to the lords’ favor [Bellamy, 1970:80-87, Bellamy, 1979].

“The Inquisition explicitly outlawed cannabis ingestion in Spain in the twelfth century and in France in the thirteenth. In 1430, Joan of Arc was accused of using a variety of “witch” drugs to hear voices. Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal fiat in 1484 condemning the use of cannabis in the “satanic mass”.
“The Emperor Wears No Clothes”, p.73, as quoted in “Green Gold”, p. 215

Euphan M’Calzeane, daughter of Lord Cliftonhall, one of the senators of the college of justice (his death, in 1581, spared him from the disgrace and misery of seeing his daughter fall by the hands of the executioner), who was married to a gentleman, by whom she had three children, was accused of treasonably conspiring the king’s death by enchantments; particularly by framing a waxen picture of the king (king James VI); “… of raising storms to hinder his return from Denmark” ; and of various other articles of witchcraft. She possessed a considerable estate in her own right; was heard by counsel in her defence; was found guilty by the jury, which consisted of landed gentlemen of note; and was “burnt alive”, and her estate confiscated. Her children, however, after being thus barbarously robbed of their mother, were restored by the act of parliament, against the forfeiture. The act does not say the sentence was unjust, but the king was ” touched in honour and conscience” to restore the children. But, to move his majesty’s conscience, the children had to pay five thousand merks to the donator of escheat, and relinquish the estate of Cliftonhall, which the king gave to Sir James Sandilands of Slamanno.

Anti-Catholic Penal Laws and Relief Acts

1559, Act of Supremacy: Monarch supreme governor of Church of England, clergy to take oath of supremacy on pain of deprivation.
To the first period belong the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity (I Eliz. 1 and 2) and the amending statute (5 Eliz. c. 1). By the Act of Supremacy all who maintained the spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of any foreign prelate were to forfeit all goods and chattels, both real and personal, and all benefices for the first offence, or in case the value of these was below 20 pounds, to be imprisoned for one year; they were liable to the forfeitures of Praemunire for the second offence and to the penalties of high treason for the third offence. These penalties of Praemunire were: exclusion from the sovereign’s protection, forfeiture of all lands and goods, arrest to answer to the Sovereign and Council. The penalties assigned for high treason were:

drawing, hanging and quartering; corruption of blood, by which heirs became incapable of inheriting honours and offices; and, lastly

forfeiture of all property.

1559, Act of Uniformity: imposed Book of Common Prayer, one shilling fine for failure to attend church on Sunday.

1563, forbidden to defend papal supremacy on pain of Praemunire (forfeiture of property).

1605, convicted recusants to receive Anglican communion once per annum on pain of fine and eventual forfeiture of property.

At the close of the seventeenth century fresh statutes were passed. In May, 1700, an Act of Parliament offered a reward of five hundred merks for the conviction of any priest or Jesuit; the same statute disabled Catholics from inheriting property or educating their children. After the Act of Union, in 1707, the Penal Laws were still enforced. In addition to the provisions already recorded and other sufferings which they shared with English Catholics, there were galling restrictions peculiar to Scotland. The purchase or dissemination of Catholic books was forbidden under pain of banishment and forfeiture of personal property. They could not be governors, school-masters, guardians or factors, and any one who employed them as such was fined a thousand merks. They were fined five hundred merks for teaching “any art, science or exercise of any sort”. Any Protestant who became a Catholic forfeited his whole hereditable estate to the nearest Protestant heir.

The first repeal of the Penal Code was effected by the Act for the relief of Scottish Catholics, which received the royal assent in May, 1793, and practically complete liberty was granted to them under the provisions of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.

By the seventeenth century, all felonies were punishable by death and/or forfeiture of property. Crimes that were considered felonies included murder, manslaughter, witchcraft, larceny, abduction of an heiress with intent to marry her, forgery of a deed or testimonial, transportation of a sheep, and malicious cutting of another man’s tongue or his eyes [Veall, 1970:2].
In 1615, Italian physician and “Demonologist” Giovanni De Ninault listed hemp as the main ingredient in the ointments used by the “Devil’s followers”.”
-E. Abel, “Marijuana; The First 12,000 years”, as quoted in “Green Gold”, p. 227

“George Jacobus, one of those accused of witchcraft at Salem, was hanged in August of 1692. Subsequently all his property was confiscated, even his wife’s wedding ring was seized.” – “Witchcraft and Demonology”, 1987, F.X. King, Hamlyn

We tend to look at the Salem Witch Trials with a ghoulish fascination, focusing on the forbidden and the sexual overtones that have come to be identified with the events. However, the reality is the trials were about the misuse of the justice system for private goals and gain.

Under English law the accused were held responsible for proving their innocence. The concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ did not exist. The formal accusers in the original series of accusations were teenaged girls. Behind them stood a group of men, they were judges, sheriffs, jailers and others prominent in the community.

Immediately after being accused and incarcerated for witchcraft (which was a Capital crime) the property of the individual was seized. Those who ran the trials also profited from them. They would keep the property for their own use. Food was withheld from the incarcerated until and unless their families paid. Bedding, household implements, animals and food were among the confiscated.

357 people of all ages and both genders were accused. 157 were gaoled. 19 were hanged. 5 died in prison and one was pressed to death, a particularly grisly way to meet his maker. Giles Corey was a wealthy man who made the mistake of signing the petition circulated in support of Rebecca Nourse, an early victim of the Trials.

Once accused, he chose to stand mute, asserting neither his guilt nor innocence. To proclaim your innocence was a death sentence since this also asserted your claim to your seized property. To plead guilty gave you the hope of life. Those who refused to confess were guaranteed the gallows tree, so by standing mute Giles Corey frustrated the obvious desire of those in power to take his property.

On September 19th, Giles Corey was laid upon the ground and great weights of rocks were piled on him until he died. What they could not acquire from him they took when they accused his wife, Martha. She was hanged on September 22.

William Barker, Junior was 15 1/2 when he was arrested on September 1, 1692 on the charge of having practiced witchcraft. That frightening summer many of his extended family had also been accused and jailed. His first cousin, Mary Barker at age 13, and his own father, William Barker, Senior, had been arrested in August and preceded William Jr. to the jail of Salem.

The Witchcraft Trials were not caused by obscure herbs in the crops or the practice of witchcraft. The Devil, in his most foul incarnation, was alive in Salem and the surrounding villages working through the greed, arrogance, and unholy ambitions of such men as Cotton Mather, Thomas Putnam, John Hathorne and others.

John Hathorne of Salem, Massachusetts was not the first in his family line to lend himself to ugliest of practices. His ancestor, William Hathorne, had been the instrument through which the persecution of the Quakers had been carried out.

Using power to enrich himself was an accepted family practice, one that was to haunt the conscience of his descendent, William Hawthorne, the author of many classical American books, including The House of the Seven Gables. William added the ‘w’ to his name to disassociate himself from his grandfather’s actions.

Over the months of 1692 the money machine originally identified and put into use in SalemVillage picked up speed. The accusers reached higher and higher gaining confidence as their success fed their greed.

Like an infection the accusations ran through extended families, rending their lives and destroying the shallow prosperity of these were farm communities.

The accusers lived out a malignant fantasy, but their ambitions reached too high when they accused the wife of the new Governor, Sir William Phipps. Governor Phipps returned from command of troops in Maine on September 29, 1692 to discover that in his absence the legal system had been hijacked. The money machine was about to be closed down through two separate and very different events.

The first was the filing of a lawsuit for defamation of character by a ‘worthy gentleman of Boston” upon being informed that he was accused of witchcraft. The suit was for a thousand pounds, a huge amount at the time. The accusers had not imagined that they could be vulnerable hiding behind the trappings of the justice system.

The second event occurred on October 29, 1629 with Governor Phipps ending the Court of Oyer and Terminer that had overseen the persecutions and authorized the use of asset forfeiture. Several men were re-appointed to serve in the newly constituted court. Three names were prominently excused from further service. Those were John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin, and Bartholomew Gedney. These had been the most active in seizing the property of the accused.

On April 25, and May 6, 1693 the Superior Court of Judicature met in Boston and Ipswich. Everyone accused was cleared during these two sessions. The aftermath also had its injustices. One young woman, Mary Watkins, unable to pay her prison fees was sold into slavery in Virginia and none of accusers were required to return the property so unjustly seized.

She was released from Salem prison in March 1693. Her husband, Robert EAMES, died on 22 July 1693. On 17 October 1711, Rebecca EAMES was among 22 of those convicted during 1692 whose attainder (forfeiture of all land and property) was reversed by act of the Massachusetts General Assembly.

“Within them are potent chemicals, ergot alkaloids, including lysergic acid (from which LSD is made) and ergotamine (now used to treat migraine headaches). … At that time, rye was the staple grain of Salem. The rye crop consumed in the winter of 1691-1692 — when the first usual symptoms began to be reported — could easily have been contaminated by large quantities of ergot. The summer of 1692, however, was dry, which could explain the abrupt end of the ‘bewitchments.’ “

“Ergot poisoning can’t even explain all of the events at Salem, Caporael concedes. Some of the behaviors exhibited by the witch accusers probably were the result of mass hysteria — or outright fakery. ‘At the end of June and the beginning of July, 1692, I think there was more imagination than ergot. But by that point in time three people had already been hung, and the trials had taken a path that people felt they had to stay on,’ Caporael says.”

1689 — Parliament passes the English Bill of Rights. The bill contains a prohibition against excessive fines, which is later incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.
There are several reasons given by legal historians for the fact that criminal forfeiture and corruption of blood were rarely used as penalties in the American colonies, even in the seventeenth century. A number have cited attainder’s harsh consequences on innocent descendants [Maxeiner, 1977:774; Kent, 1971, Vol. 2:317; Story, 1970, Vol. 3:172]. The history of England had shown the American colonists that one of the strong incentives for the Crown to prosecute offenses such as treason had been the chance of sharing in the plunder of the accused [Story, 1970, Vol. 3:173].

1789 — U.S. Congress allows the forfeiture of goods of importers trying to evade customs duties.
The first statute authorizing civil forfeiture, was enacted by Congress in 1789 as a sanction for the use of ships in customs violations. -Act of July 31, 1789, Sections 12, 36; 1 Stat. 39, 47.(back to document)

1790 — U.S. Congress allows the seizure of smuggled goods. That same year, it prohibits forfeiture of a defendant’s property as punishment for a crime.

1861 — U.S. Congress directs the president to seize property used “for insurrectionary purposes.”

1871 — In Tyler v. Defrees, the U.S. Supreme Court OK’s the seizure of property belonging to Confederate sympathizers during the Civil War.

1878 — In Dobbins’ Distillery v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court allows the government to seize real estate associated with moonshining.

1913 — Nevada Legislature empowers police to confiscate and dispose of weapons taken from individuals charged with crimes.




Special Feature: The Nazi Forfeiture Law

Thanks to Mark Nestmann, we now have the text of the forfeiture statute of the Third Reich. If you substitute “Scourge of Drugs” for “Communism,” it seems we’ve found the blue print for the War on Drugs.

The English language edition set out below is from a Treasury Department Publication by Clifford J. Hynning, GERMANY: Preliminary Compilation of Selected Laws, Decrees and Regulations, Discriminatory Laws (1944), based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, (1942) pp. 215-17, and J.K. Pollak and H.J. Heneman, The Hitler Decrees, (1934) pp. 10-11.

Decree of the Reich President For the Protection of The People And State (“Verordnung des Reichspr>sidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat”)

In virtue of Section 48(2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of violence, endangering the state:

Section 1

Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Section 2

If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

[Section 3 missing from translation]

Section 4

Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to them for the execution of this decree or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable — insofar as the deed is not covered by other decrees with more severe punishments — with imprisonment of not less than one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less than two years. In addition the sentence may include confiscation of property.

Whoever provokes or incites to an act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

Section 5

The crimes under which the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties), 324 (general poisoning).

Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

2. Anyone who under Section 115(2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125(2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person:

3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal Code with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

Section 6

This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

Reich President von Hindenburg
Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler
Reich Minister of the Interior Frich
Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Grtner

If Japanese aliens residing in the United States had traveled outside the continental United States at any time since June 17, 1940, their assets were frozen. This measure affected more persons than is readily apparent. As with Germans who could be Jewish nationals but not German citizens, many Americans could be Japanese nationals but not United States citizens. In the 1940s federal law excluded any immigrant born in Japan from U.S. citizenship. Someone could have lived in the United States for decades and have children who were U.S. citizens, but hold the status of enemy alien because the law did not allow the person to apply for citizenship. Frozen bank accounts prevented many victims from leaving the West Coast (and thereby escaping internment) because they could not pay for movers or other needs associated with moving.14 Not only did confiscations thereby dovetail with concentration, they also dovetailed with ostracism. In Arizona “under the maliciously devised anti-evacuee law, a hotel room, a meal, or even a loaf of bread could not be purchased without first publishing a public notice of such intent at least three times and filing a copy of such notice with the Secretary of State. In one case . . . the Standard Oil Company was fined $1,000 for selling $9.25 worth of gas to a Nisei [Japanese-American].”15 Aliens who had not left the continental United States since June 17, 1940 could retain use of their property but had to complete federal inventory Form TFR-300 if their belongings had a total value of $1,000. Federal Reserve Banks kept track of completed forms.16 Aliens were forbidden to do anything that would signficantly reduce the value of registered property.17 After the war began a federal Alien Property Custodian seized the property from those victims.18

In contrast, U.S. citizens of Japanese descent lost their property through a process similar to Aryanization in Nazi Germany, by which covetous persons and corporations acquired valid titles under dubious circumstances. After Japanese-Americans received official notice that they would be shipped to an “assembly center” (a minimum security prison) where they would await transport to a “relocation center” (concentration camp), they had five to fourteen days to make arrangements.19 Victims could take bed linen, a few changes of clothing, a personal set of eating utensils, toilet articles. Almost everything else had to be left behind, from books to automobiles.20 Victims could store household property privately or in government depots. Government storage was at victims’ own expense and risk–no insurance was available, and the government said it would honor no claim for loss.21 Persons considering storage of automobiles with the government were told that their cars would undergo “more or less rapid deterioration” under government care and might never be returned.22 Persons who stored property through private arrangements fared little better. One family “rented their San Francisco home and put their personal possessions in a locked room–only to return after the internment and find the room broken into and their valuables gone.”23 One victim remembered, “We couldn’t pack up all the stoves and refrigerators and stuff like that. We stored them away in the nursery–our stove, our kids’ toys, and some of our furniture. Some truck driver took our stove and never paid for it. When we got back from camp we had nothing–even the toys were all gone.”24 Such experiences were common among victims: “Pilfering and vandalism often began before they were hardly out of their homes. A postwar survey revealed that 80 percent of goods privately stored were ‘rifled, stolen or sold during absence.'”25

1970 — U.S. Congress enacts the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which contains an asset forfeiture provision.

1983 — Nevada Legislature approves Nevada’s first civil forfeiture statute. Bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Malone, D-Las Vegas, who also serves in the patrol division of the Metropolitan Police Department.

1993 — In United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determines that seizure of real property without a hearing violates the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

1996 — Nevada Supreme Court, relying on Good, issues its decision in Levingston v. Washoe County. It finds the seizure of a defendant’s property, after conviction, violates the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

1996 — With an 8-1 ruling in United States v. Ursery, the U.S. Supreme Court declares that civil forfeitures did not constitute “punishment” for purposes of the double jeopardy clause.

1998 — At the request of Washoe County, the Nevada Supreme Court reverses its earlier ruling in Levingston to bring Nevada case law into conformity with Ursery.

1998 — In United States v. Bajakajian, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that forfeitures must be “proportional” to the offense and not violate the excessive fines clause of the U.S. Constitution.


In modern times, forfeiture is used to protect the public from harmful products and the property of criminal enterprise.4

In 1978, Congress expanded the law to permit forfeiture of all money used in, or acquired from, the illegal drug trade6 and authorized the forfeiture of real property in 1984.7

Federal civil and criminal forfeiture statutes now reach substantially the same offenses and type of property. All fifty states and the District of Columbia now have some type of civil and/or criminal forfeiture statute in effect.8

As a result, criminals are deprived of their working capital and their profits, thereby preventing them from operating. A secondary benefit of forfeiture laws is that forfeited property, or the proceeds of its sale, has been turned over to law enforcement and is used to fight against crime.

While the purpose of forfeiture and the evaluation of a forfeiture law or program should never be based solely on the generation of revenue, it is only fitting that forfeited property be used to combat those who seek to profit from crime.

In 1988, a law enforcement coalition consisting of the Attorney General and the four county prosecutors and police chiefs proposed that a new, uniform forfeiture law be enacted H.B. No. 2080, which became Act 260, Session Laws of Hawaii 1988, and was codified as chapter 712A, HRS, represented a combination of current federal forfeiture law, the forfeiture act adopted by the State of Arizona in 1986, and the provisions of Hawaii’s various laws relating to forfeiture. The purpose was to create a law which would be both procedurally and substantively comprehensive and, to the extent possible, uniform across the State. Chapter 712A provides for administrative forfeitures and judicial forfeitures against individuals and property.

Perhaps the most important advantage afforded by chapter 712A is a provision by which forfeiture of personal property worth less than $100,000, or forfeiture of any vehicle or conveyance, regardless of value, is administratively processed. Previously, all forfeitures were handled through judicial proceedings, resulting in the consumption of judicial resources even where the forfeiture was uncontested.

Under section 712A-10, HRS, a prosecuting attorney files a petition for administrative forfeiture of seized property with the Department of the Attorney General. Persons who own or otherwise have an interest in seized property (“claimants”), have thirty days to respond from the date they receive notice of the pending forfeiture.

Claimants may file a Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture. The petitioner asks the Attorney General to invoke the executive power to “pardon” the property, in whole or in part, because of extenuating or mitigating circumstances not otherwise amounting to a legal defense to forfeiture. Depending on the circumstances, the Attorney General may pardon the property in its entirety and “remit” (return) it to the claimants or “mitigate” the forfeiture by returning the property on payment of a fine.

Finally, the claimant may do nothing, in which case forfeiture is ordered after expiration of thirty days. By these means, forfeiture proceedings can be disposed of administratively without unnecessary consumption of valuable judicial resources while still providing those who want their day in court” the opportunity to challenge the forfeiture.

4U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Agents Guide to Forfeiture of assets 3 (1987 Revision and Supp. 1990).(back to document)

621 U.S.C. Section 881(a)(6).(back to document)
721 U.S.C. Section 853.(back to document)
8National Criminal Justice Association, Asset Seizure & Forfeiture: Developing and Maintaining A State Capability, App

Some have proposed splitting the proceeds from forfeitures with those citizens who turn in drug dealers, an idea quite similar to the British practice of rewarding customs informants and agents. In 1989, U. S. Congressman Dick Schultze proposed H.R. 3346, the Bounty Hunter Act. Those who supplied the names of drug pushers would be rewarded by receiving fifty percent of the value, as moiety, of all assets seized by the government. One police department in Florida paid to have printed in the local newspaper a coupon encouraging citizens to clip the coupon and send in the names of persons involved in the drug trade. While informants are certainly necessary in any attempt to deal with crime problems, these proposals come quite close to encouraging vigilantism. This has already become a problem in some communities, with alleged crack houses being burned to the ground by irate neighbors and “Guardian Angel” type groups acting as judge and jury when they locate suspected drug sellers.

Counterdrug and Drug Remand Reduction Programs

The Counterdrug Program assisted in the seizure of approximately $314 million in drugs, cash, and property throughout the state in 1998. Since the Program began operations in 1989, more than $2 billion in Guard assisted seizures have occurred. The National Guard’s role in the war on drugs will continue to assist law enforcement agencies by providing intelligence analysts, case supporters, investigative and paralegal personnel, cargo/mail inspectors, and aerial support when needed.

Part of that support includes providing 2,300 man days in the translation and transcription of audio/videotapes, seized documents and other information media. The linguist support mission was established in June at the former Lodi Armory which is used as a Counterdrug Operation and Training Center. It operates as a satellite classroom for the New York/New Jersey High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area providing intelligence analysis and computer operation instruction at no cost to the state and local LEAs.

The Drug Demand Reduction program was in great demand at schools and community centers throughout the state. Guard personnel conducted or supported 69 activities that trained 15,490 people, which included 6,380 students in 47 schools. This training includes activities to prevent drug abuse as well as develop organized community coalitions to reduce drug use. Emphasis is placed on those schools with Junior ROTC programs.

“The stories in this book will make your blood boil. Is this America at the close of the 20th century? If is seems more like medieval Europe, when lords held all but unaccountable power over their subjects, it is because that is the origin of modern American forfeiture law. Revived and driven by the war on drugs, that law today is being used across this nation to make a mockery of our rights to property and due process, and is now reaching well beyond the war on drugs. It is to the credit of Henry Hyde — no pandering liberal he — that a spotlight is shining at last on this dark corner of our law.”
–Roger Pilon, from the Foreword

War on Drugs: Forfeiting Rights
April 16, 2001
by Kim
The current edition of Liberty & Law, the Institute for Justice’s newsletter, features a victory for freedom. But it also highlights the dangerous consequences of the War on Drugs.
The Institute, a non-profit legal foundation, helped Carol Thomas of Cumberland County, New Jersey get her 1990 Thunderbird back from the police. Ms. Thomas’ 17-year-old son was caught in a marijuana drug bust. Unfortunately for Carol, he was driving her car at the time.

He did not have her consent to drive the car nor was she aware of his drug activities. He pled guilty to the drug charge.

New Jersey law allows forfeiture of assets involved in drug arrests. In Carol’s case, no drugs were found in her Thunderbird and she, of course, was not involved or present at the scene.

Tough luck.

Hi Ho Silver
But the white-hats at IJ (www.ij.org) argued the seizure of the car violated Carol’s Constitutional rights. A judge agreed and Carol is once again tooling down the Garden State Parkway in her T-bird.

True to form, IJ’s lawyers didn’t just save the damsel in distress and leave a silver bullet behind. They filed a counterclaim challenging the state’s authority to seize property.

Again, their compelling argument prevailed and the judge ruled the suit had merit to continue. Another court will decide if the state’s forfeiture law gives law enforcement improper incentives to target and seize property. It will also determine if the practice violates citizens’ due process. The case will be heard this summer.

A grateful Carol Thomas said:

“I’ve won my case; now I want to make sure the state stops cashing in on the property of other innocent owners.”

Widespread Abuse
Drug forfeiture laws are not unique to New Jersey.

In rural Kentucky, farmer James Burton suffers from glaucoma. Mr. Burton grew a few marijuana plants in his backyard for personal medicinal purposes. Drug agents arrested him and he had to forfeit his house and the entire 90-acre farm.

In Detroit, a drug SWAT team raided a local grocery store after an informant suggested drug dealing on the premises. No drugs were found but drug-sniffing dogs reacted to three $1 bills in the cash register. As a result, the SWAT team confiscated the store safe and all cash in the registers, totaling $4,384. (According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation now contains some drug residue.)

In Nashville, Willie Jones, a gardener, planned to fly to Texas to purchase plants at a wholesale outlet. Unfortunately, this one-man operation didn’t have a corporate American Express Gold Card to buy his tickets at the airport. Instead, he paid cash. Hmmm, black man, lots of cash….must be a drug dealer. The police pulled him aside. Willie had $9,000 in his pocket – literally the seed money for his business. Without any drug evidence, Willie’s $9,000 was forfeited to the police. It took several years for him to regain his cash, minus substantial legal costs.

Another airport, another confiscation. At Houston’s Hobby Airport, 49-year-old Ethel Hylton was arrested because drug-sniffing dogs scratched at her luggage. The bags were searched. She was strip-searched. No drugs. But the agents found something even better than cocaine. They found cash — $39,110. Ethel received most of the money from an insurance settlement along with her life savings as a housekeeper and janitor. Ethel documented where she got the money and has not been charged with a crime. But because of the suspected drug offense, the forfeited money has not been returned – after four years and countless attempts.
Back in the USSR
How can this happen in America?

The War on Drugs has morphed into a War on Liberties. In their anti-drug zeal, law enforcement officials and the courts have teamed up to suspend due process and seizure rights.

This civil asset forfeit practice is particularly galling. Most of the time, the incentive is to seize first and consult the Constitution second. That’s because police departments get to keep what they seize.

In many places, police departments structure their budget around anticipated “forfeiture revenue.” It’s basically a quota system.

Out of Control
The Lindesmith Center reports these facts:

“In more than 80% of asset forfeiture cases, the owner of the property is never charged with a crime, yet government officials can, and usually do, keep the seized property.

“Police are required by federal law to use seized assets for law enforcement purposes. In Warren County, N.J. this means the chief prosecutor drives a yellow Corvette seized in an asset forfeiture case. In Louisiana, police have spent money gained from asset forfeiture on ski trips to Aspen, meals at local restaurants and on shopping sprees.

“Currently, the law calls for citizens to prove that their property is innocent. The owner must prove that the seized property was not used in a crime.”
Join the Fight
Our friends at the Institute for Justice are fighting these abuses. The Internet Party urges you to support their efforts and help IJ restore individual freedom.

Contact/contribute to the non-profit Institute for Justice at www.ij.org.

Our thanks to the following for the above forfeiture examples: Kansas City Star, USA Today, the Lindesmith Center, freerepublic.com, civilliberty.com, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Pittsburgh Press, The Cato Institute, and The Institute for Justice.






Benedikt Fischer, Patricia G. E:rickson and Reginald Smart, Social Evaluation and Research Department, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, Canada*

*Any views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the ARF.

In autumn of 1996, a new drug control law, first introduced as Bill C-7, comes into being in Canada. The pending statute of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) is particularly important for the future profile of the country’s drug policy, as it constitutes the central element of criminal definitions and measures aimed at ‘illicit drugs’, and their primary control by law enforcement. Furthern tore, Canadian drug laws are not being changed very often. The previous drug control law, the Narcotic Control Act (NCA) was introduced some four decades ago, with some minor revisions in 196 1. The new drug law constitutes a watershed in the evolution of Canadian drug policy: will Canada enter the twenty-first century guided by a ‘harra reduction’ law and policy, or will it continue on its traditional path of criminal repression of illicit drugs and their users? This paper will provide an introduction to the history of Canadian drug law up to the passage of CDSA. We will outline the central features of Bill C-7, especially as it compares to the NCA. The authors are critical of the proposed law on the grounds that it contradicts fundamental principles of ‘harm reduction’ and perpetuates a failing, nearly century-old policy.


Canada’s response to ‘illicit’ drugs has traditionally been dominated by a strong enforcement emphasis. In the first half of the century, a complex and powerfut drug enforcement network in combination with an existing strong’t-norat crusader’ ideology facititated a repressive approach primarily against opiurn, opiates and cocaine (Giffen et al., 1991). In the mid1900s, an evolving ‘treatment movement’, building on the ideology of drug use as pathological, argued for a reorientation of ‘rehabilitation instead of punishment’for drug users. These substantial ideological shifts, however, were never incorporated into the Canadian drug control taw (G iffen et al., 199 1; Solomon and Green, 1988). The NCA established in the early 1960s confirmed the punitive approach against illicit drug use and supply. The’cannabis use wave’ of the mid- 1960s onward triggered a large-scale enforcement response, criminalising tens of thousands of cannabis users and producing largely harsh sentences mainly against young offenders (Fischer, 1994a, 1994b). A number of political efforts, including the Le Dain Commission in early 1970s, pursued a more rational response to various substances (especially cannabis), but did not change the overall governing scheme of legal repression (Erickson and Fischer, 1995; Fischer, 1994b; Le Dain Commission, 197 2). By the early 1990s, some 600 000 Canadians had received criminal records for cannabis-related offences, about 35 000 offences were processed for drug possession for personal use annually, and some 14% of the Canadian prison population were incarcerated for drug offences (Erickson, 1992).

The Canadian Conservative government announced anew drug pot icy initiative in 1987 titled ‘Canada’s Drug Strategy’. The large majority of its programme funds-some 70%-was to be dirz~cted towards’d emand red Lict ion'(ed ucation, preven t ion, treatment and rehabilitation programmes), The Strategy communicated aharm reduction’ message and aimed at a ‘balanced approach between sipply and demand reduction’ as its central principles (Fischer, 1994a; Single et al., 199 1). It announced that a new drug control statute would constitu Le the ‘legal backbone’ of this new drug policy initiative (Beatty, 199 1; Government of Canada, 1992).

This proposed law, tabled in 1991, triggered confusion: Bill C,85 (then called the Psychoactive Substances Control Act) was a modernised NCA, featuring the old ideology and instruments of drug user criminalisation, comprehensive cannabis repression, and harsh maximum sentences, leaving old pharmacological ittogicalities unchanged. It was, according to critics, ‘badly drafted’ and a retrograde step (ARF, 1993; Usprich and Solomon, 1993). Bill C-85 encountered substantial resistance in the partiamentary hearings, whilst the government was trying to defend it asa’legal housekeeping’exercise, not 2. a policy initiative (Erickson, 1993).-It eventually died on the order paper in the fall of 1993, when the Conservative government lost office.

The Liberals, who had staunchly opposed Bill C-85, came into government power, and tabled Bill C-7 as their proposed version of a new drug law in early 1994 (Minister of Health, 1994). Although it had a new name, the Liberal bill, was an almost identical twin to Bill C-85 (Boyd, 1994). The basic features of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act remained the same. The Liberal administration also cited ‘strong pressure from the sides of international drug control authorities’ as a major force behind the bill. Parliamentary hearings on C-7 started in summer 1994, and opposition to the law, mainly from the groups that had already resisted Bill C-85, was substantial (Minutes, quoted in Fischer, 1997). However, after lengthy committee hearings, the Canadian Parliament passed C-7 with minor amendments on October 30 1995. As a paradoxical concession, the government stated that it would initiate a drug ‘policy review’ after the bill had been passed (Erickson and Fischer, 1995; Hansard, 1995).

Bill C-7, after being passed by the House, moved into committee hearings in the Canadian Senate (which must approve it before it comes into effect). Again, the hearing process triggered a response by a large number of research and interest groups for testimony to initiate revisions on Bill C-7 before becoming Canadian criminal law. The Canadian Parliament was prorogued on February 2 1996, and the Bill died on the order paper. However, Bill C-7 was re- introduced as Bill G 8 as soon as the new Parliamentary session commenced. The Senate resumed hearings and eventually passed C-8 with very minor revisions injune 1996. The Bill has since received royal assent. When Parliament reconvenes in the autumn of 1996, the CDSA, will be proclaimed and be put into practice.

Core features of the CDSA, the new Canadian drug law:

9. Widens police and enforcement powers in regard to search, seizure or forfeiture of any drug-offence suspicion- related person or place. It waives the need for a search warrant ‘if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist, but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impractical to obtain one’.

(CCSA, 1995; House of Commons, Canada, 1995)


Pursuant to ss. 16(1) and 2(1) of the C.D.S.A. the Crown sought seizure/forfeiture of a dwelling house which had been used as part of a sophisticated marijuana-grow operation of a “highly commercial nature”. HELD: the “offence-related property” provisions do not apply to real property.

R. v. Keith GISBY et al (02 OCT 2000)


In recent years, the federal government has taken a number of key steps, in partnership with the provinces, territories and the police, against organized crime:

The Anti-Smuggling Initiative, introduced in 1994, provided resources for the RCMP, Justice and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to target smuggling and distribution networks at the border, in our ports, and across the country. This initiative was renewed in 1997, and has led to 17,000 smuggling-related charges in excess of $113 million, and $118 million in evaded taxes and duties has been identified. In June 1999, the federal government injected another $78 million over the next four years to combat smuggling.

The Witness Protection Program Act came into force in 1996. It established a formal, national program to protect those who risk their lives to assist police investigations.

In September 1996, Solicitor General Canada and Justice Canada organized a National Forum on Organized Crime, bringing the police, federal and provincial governments, the private sector, the legal community, and academics together. At that time, it was clear that Canada needed a more coordinated approach to fight organized crime, and participants recommended more national coordination in areas like money laundering, cross-border controls, and criminal intelligence and law enforcement.

Solicitor General Canada, in cooperation with the provinces and police forces, established five Regional Coordinating Committees and a National Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime in 1997. They provide a solid foundation for further cooperation and bring a multi-disciplinary approach to combating organized crime. The national committee, with regional representation, focuses on policy and legislative issues arising from enforcement-related concerns. These committees include members of various police forces as well as senior provincial and federal government officials.

Bill C-17, also enacted in 1997, introduced numerous and wide-ranging changes related to powers of search, as well as those related to interim judicial release or bail which are highly relevant to the investigation and prosecution of criminal organization offences.

Thirteen Integrated Proceeds of Crime (IPOC) units were established by 1997. They combine the resources and expertise of RCMP, local and provincial police officers, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency officers, Crown counsel and forensic accountants. These units target organized crime groups and seize their ill-gotten assets, over $140 million so far. To date, over $70 million in forfeitures and fines have been realized.

Bill C-95, enacted in 1997 in the wake of violent events associated with a turf war between two outlaw biker gangs in the province of Quebec, implemented a number of proposals identified by the 1996 Organized Crime Forumbut it did not create a “membership” offence. Instead, Bill C-95 introduced the concepts of “criminal organization”, “criminal organization offence” and “participation in a criminal organization offence” and expanded investigative powers for the police (e.g., it facilitated the use of electronic surveillance by police) and enhanced the protection of the public by providing a reverse onus for persons charged with a criminal organization offence seeking bail and a new peace bond which may be issued against any person in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to fear that the person will commit a criminal organization offence. The cornerstone of that legislation makes participation in a criminal organization offence an indictable offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison to be served consecutively.

Bill C-8, enacted in May 1997, created the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This legislation modernized Canada’s drug laws and, together with the Police Enforcement Regulations adopted under the Act, provided exemptions for peace officers and persons acting under their direction for money laundering and possession of proceeds of crime offences and for the restraint and forfeiture of offence-related property. The CDSA created the ability to seize or restrain property that was used, or intended to be used, to commit designated substance offences, i.e., offence-related property. This new Act has permitted Canada to modernize its approach to drug control.

Canada and the U.S established a Cross-Border Crime Forum in 1997 to improve cooperation and information-sharing between our two countries. The Forum includes senior law enforcement and justice officials from both countries, including provincial and state representatives. Under the direction of the United States Attorney General and the Solicitor General of Canada, the forum examines issues such as the impact of cross-border crimes, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, missing and abducted children, high-tech crime and other emerging issues.

In October 1998, the federal government and all provinces and territories signed an historic agreement called the Joint Statement on Organized Crime. It underscores the commitment to work together in partnership to combat organized crime. The Statement calls for improved information sharing.

Bill C-51, enacted in 1999, made amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that people convicted of offences related to organized crime are no longer eligible for accelerated parole review.

Recent agreements between the RCMP and U.S. law enforcement agencies to provide reciprocal direct access to each other’s criminal databases, such as the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), a firearms identification database, and a unique automotive paint chip database.

Amendments to the federal Competition Act (Bill C-20) received Royal Assent in March 1999. The legislation created new offences related to deceptive telemarketing. A further amendment defined the new offences as enterprise crime, bringing them within the scope of the Criminal Code scheme for seizure and forfeiture of proceeds. The amendment recognizes the seriousness of telemarketing offences, which can generate very large proceeds because of the large numbers of victims who can be targeted.

In April 1999, $115 million was provided to the



  1. XRumerTest on

    Hello. And Bye.

  2. XRumerTest on

    Hello. And Bye.

  3. XRumerTest on

    Hello. And Bye.

  4. XRumerTest on

    Hello. And Bye.

  5. XRumerTest on

    Hello. And Bye.

  6. XRumerTest on

    Hello. And Bye.

  7. XRumerTest on

    Hello. And Bye.