And I know it isn't that difficult to prove that the money was obtained by legal means, but the burden should never be on the accused.
Isn't that difficult? I've heard that it costs tens of thousands in legal fees to do so!
I mean, how can I 'prove' the money in my bank account didn't come via illegal means? I mean, sure,
most of the deposits are from my employers, but what about the other deposits? How do I prove that the occasional deposit isn't because I have a minor drug trade on the side, rather than selling stuff on craigslist?
How I prove that, despite the $200 withdrawal last week, that the $100 in my pocket isn't from that money as opposed to drug proceeds, my already having spent the $200?
All that said, isn't this (right now at least) just for pre-paid and gift cards which are in the grand scheme of things like carrying cash?
That's what I was thinking. A "gift card" is a lot easier to hide than several hundred dollars, can carry thousands, and until now was less likely to be seized, thus safer for the crooks. Hell, give the 'numbers' to an accomplice and if you're arrested with the physical cards, they could retrieve the funds.
That's actually an interesting point. How do banks handle that now?
They try to only target homes with significant equity.
As for seizing houses, one 'landmark' case I remember is that the grandson of a woman was running from the cops over drug related stuff. He cut through her house and was caught in the back yard. No drugs were found in the grandmother's house. When the cops were chasing him, she
pointed him out, not showing any approval of his chosen activities. He didn't live there, and hadn't been there regularly for years.
Despite this, they confiscated her house because it was associated with the arrest, and therefore him. It ended up reversed, but the people in charge of deciding what to seize still said it was perfectly inline.