A court in Romania has rejected a request by influencer Andrew Tate to return assets that were seized during investigations into the case in which he is charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
Happens in the US all the time, actually. Tate is charged with a crime, and in a position analogous to someone who’s out on bail in the US. He’s free atm, just not allowed to leave the country. His assets have been seized, which is something that also happens all the time in America (https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture). The difference is Tate has actually been charged with a crime and, afaik, his assets will be returned to him if he’s found not guilty of the charges against him. In America, your assets can be seized without you ever actually being charged with a crime, and they’re not returned to you unless you go to court to prove your innocence. There’s a legal loophole where they declare that it’s your stuff, not you, that is on trial and stuff does not have civil rights, so taking your stuff does not violate your right to due process and suspicion (not of any crime in particular, just generally seeming suspicious) allows for the presumption of guilt. The people who decide whether or not your stuff is innocent of a crime also get to keep 100% of it if they decide that it is not, the person whose stuff is seized doesn’t have the right to counsel or even to know that there is a hearing taking place about seizing their stuff. Often times, they only find out that their stuff is on trial after the trial has completed, the stuff has been found “guilty” in absentia, and the police have come to steal it at gunpoint. I feel like it bears repeating that they often have no intention of accusing the owner of any crime, the decision as to whether to take the stuff is made by the people who get to keep the stuff, and that the matter is often already decided with no opportunity for appeal by the time the owner is made aware that any proceedings against them have begun. They often offer to return some of the assets in exchange for the owner’s agreement to not pursue the case further, essentially paying you off with your own money and relying on the fact that proving the “innocence” of your stuff will be expensive and time consuming (https://www.newsweek.com/theft-another-name-its-time-fight-back-against-civil-forfeiture-opinion-1821368)
So yeah, actually things in the US are much worse than what’s happening to Tate, and have been for some time. Google “civil asset forfeiture abuse” if you’d like to know more, but if you take only one thing with you from this discussion, let it be the fact that in 2014 the police stole more money than burglars, and they have taken more every year since 2004 (https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm)
Happens in the US all the time, actually. Tate is charged with a crime, and in a position analogous to someone who’s out on bail in the US. He’s free atm, just not allowed to leave the country. His assets have been seized, which is something that also happens all the time in America (https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture). The difference is Tate has actually been charged with a crime and, afaik, his assets will be returned to him if he’s found not guilty of the charges against him. In America, your assets can be seized without you ever actually being charged with a crime, and they’re not returned to you unless you go to court to prove your innocence. There’s a legal loophole where they declare that it’s your stuff, not you, that is on trial and stuff does not have civil rights, so taking your stuff does not violate your right to due process and suspicion (not of any crime in particular, just generally seeming suspicious) allows for the presumption of guilt. The people who decide whether or not your stuff is innocent of a crime also get to keep 100% of it if they decide that it is not, the person whose stuff is seized doesn’t have the right to counsel or even to know that there is a hearing taking place about seizing their stuff. Often times, they only find out that their stuff is on trial after the trial has completed, the stuff has been found “guilty” in absentia, and the police have come to steal it at gunpoint. I feel like it bears repeating that they often have no intention of accusing the owner of any crime, the decision as to whether to take the stuff is made by the people who get to keep the stuff, and that the matter is often already decided with no opportunity for appeal by the time the owner is made aware that any proceedings against them have begun. They often offer to return some of the assets in exchange for the owner’s agreement to not pursue the case further, essentially paying you off with your own money and relying on the fact that proving the “innocence” of your stuff will be expensive and time consuming (https://www.newsweek.com/theft-another-name-its-time-fight-back-against-civil-forfeiture-opinion-1821368)
So yeah, actually things in the US are much worse than what’s happening to Tate, and have been for some time. Google “civil asset forfeiture abuse” if you’d like to know more, but if you take only one thing with you from this discussion, let it be the fact that in 2014 the police stole more money than burglars, and they have taken more every year since 2004 (https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm)
Land of the free.