Note: Further update September 15, 2014 introducing the idea of “Third Party Confiscation”. Updated September 12, 2014 – Reader comments of “indirect confiscation added” – if you can think of more, please add them to the comments and I will add them to the post. Thanks: NotAmused and Mark Twain.
American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money http://t.co/fAuSlA6EF8 – #OVDP (hospitality) for Cdn #Snowbirds
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) September 11, 2014
Direct Confiscation – Let me count the ways
The above tweet references an article which appeared at CBC.ca and was written by Neil MacDonald who is the Senior CBC Correspondent in Washington. The article is about the increasing U.S. use of “civil forfeiture” to confiscate people’s assets. (There have been previous Isaac Brock posts on the use of civil forfeiture here, here and here.)
To put it simply:
Civil forfeiture is a process where the government simply comes in and directly takes your property and money. As the article in the above tweet notes, cash is particularly susceptible to arbitrary confiscation.
But, what about the confiscation of cash according to U.S. law? For example, what about the confiscation of cash pursuant to Title 31? This issue was recently explored as comments to a blog post about the backlog of renunciations in Toronto.