Essay Sample on Asset Forfeiture: Confiscating Illegally Acquired Properties

Asset forfeiture is a strategy of confiscating assets used by law enforcement agencies against offenders who acquire properties illegally. Asset forfeiture applies to crimes such as terrorism, drug sales, and civil crimes. Confiscation cases can be civil (takes place without criminal proceedings) and criminal (takes place after criminal conviction) (Williams, 2002). Civil forfeiture is most rampant, but in the modern world where the government prosecutes the properties. In the 1970s, the United States Congress has given the power to the government to interrupt the activities of individuals or organizations performing crime, such as money laundering (Miceli & Johnson, 2016). The power was acquired through the establishment of forfeiture laws, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001. The money received from the sale of the confiscated properties is redistributed to the public. However, the method has been criticized for being unethical because it does lead to loss as confiscated properties are sold at a lower price. According to a study conducted by Holcomb, Kovandzic, and Williams (2011), the laws for asset forfeiture generate financial incentives that wrongly affect police behavior. The study showed that there is a correlation between police behavior and civil asset forfeiture burdens. Although asset forfeiture an effective law enforcement tool used by the state to deter criminal activities, it creates an opportunity for police agencies to generate revenue (Holcomb et al., 2011).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Cassella (2018), a property can be forfeited when it is contraband, profits of crime, used for the facilitation of criminal activity, or liked to criminal business. Smuggled goods are seized because it is illegal to possess any property attached to them. Cassella (2018) suggested that facilitating theory explains the use of forfeiture as a law enforcement tool. Most criminals use lawful properties to facilitate their activities, for instance, a drug dealer uses derivative contraband are equipment, such as scales that used to weigh drugs before use. The premises used to conduct the illegal business and equipment used to determine the weights are lawful properties but are seized by the government because they are used to facilitate the illegal activity. Cassella (2018) stressed that the ability to target criminal trade proceeds make forfeiture an effective tool in fighting crime. However, police departments take advantage of the drug cartel to raise funds for their activities. The seizure can include dividends, income, interest, and building acquired from illegal proceeds and the appreciated value. Income is also subject to forfeiture if it is linked to criminal activity, and the law does not require a direct correlation between the proceeds and the illegal activity. For instance, if a person sells substances for money, and uses it to buy a vehicle, which is later sold to purchase a house, it can be considered the proceeds of the illegal money. The theory of facilitation forfeiture applies not only to the proceeds, but also the properties and equipment used to perform the activity. The seizure may comprise properties that are used to facilitate or commit the violation.

According to Miceli and Johnson (2016), forfeiture laws are established to deter crime such as drug cartels. The law enforcement agencies may overuse the forfeiture to generate revenue using the law to maximize their power. The police may forfeit assets that are owned by a different person rather than the offender, limiting the tool's deterrence effect. The results showed that forfeiture should be combined with standards methods such as imprisonment and criminal fines to avoid manipulation (Miceli and Johnson, 2016). Most police officers are rent-seekers with a primary objective of generating a profit and threaten private properties. Economic models are incorporated in the process of asset forfeiture to assess its effectiveness in crime reduction. The models determine the number of assets that should be confiscated for the illegally acquired properties. The method helps in the confiscation of assets that are complementary to the crime. Moreover, the assets should be owned by the offender, for instance, if a drug dealer lives and operates his activities in his parent's premises, the law does not allow the officers to forfeit the building (Miceli and Johnson, 2016). The seizure becomes unethical because it disrupts the market by demotivating citizens after taking their wealth. The cost of judicial proceedings should be relatively lower to reduce the misuse of public funds. Fine is an effective tool in crime reduction because, unlike forfeiture, it does not enact a deadweight loss of the market. Therefore, seizure should be only be used when deterrence balances with the warfare loss. On the contrary, when asset forfeiture is combined with imprisonment, it is socially beneficial to confiscate the complete asset's value. The loss costly is socially optimal because the rate of seizure and the term of imprisonment are both costly (Miceli and Johnson, 2016).

Williams (2002) stated that asset forfeiture had been an effective tool of war on drugs. The local, state and federal law enforcement makes the drug business unprofitable by taking their revenues as commission for the crime. The study aimed to assess the state and federal laws to establish how the respective authority utilizes revenues from seizure. The study found that 88% of states allow police agencies to benefit from civil asset forfeitures on drugs (Williams, 2002). Moreover, only 20% of the states redistributed the money back to the public by providing healthcare and education services despite the fact they the amenities reduce drug-related offenses. Williams (2002) explores the ethical concern of forfeited money due to the increased proceeds from drug-related crimes. It is estimated that the federal government allocates over $100 billion to the war on drugs, excluding the cost incurred by the local and state governments (Williams, 2002). Although asset forfeiture on drug distribution and use has been considered ineffective, it has increased revenues for most law enforcement agencies. Civil forfeiture is associated with lower proof than criminal seizure because there are no criminal proceedings. The type of seizure is the most desired by law enforcement agencies to reduce the distribution of drugs and related crimes.

According to Williams (2002), forfeiture is easily administered, increasing the number of seized properties for more revenues. When the agencies are working under budget pitfalls, the aim of monetary gains outdoes services, such as crime-control. The respondents who included sheriffs responded that forfeiture helped them to acquire equipment that they could not afford from their budgets. The seizure method was primarily focused on the threat and amount of drugs, but now police conduct seizures based on the amount of money they will receive (Williams, 2002). Moreover, most police departments focus on drugs, the buyers, and consumers of drugs as opposed to the dealer because they have noted that they have cash in hand to purchase the drugs. The war of illegal acquisition of public properties and other crimes has not been effective because forfeiture is used as a source of revenue increasing demand for the production of drugs.

To solve most of the upcoming problems on asset forfeiture, congress introduced the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2001 to protect individuals from civil forfeiture (Williams, 2001). The new statute required increased proof before a seizure is conducted because the previous statute allowed the officers to confiscate properties once they had a probable cost. The officers were prohibited from seizing assets that belonged to an innocent owner and lengthened the period a victim may challenge the forfeiture. The money received does not benefit the public because 83% of jurisdictions spend on forfeiture expenses and law enforcement activities (William, 2002). Some jurisdictions also allocate the proceeds to healthcare centers, schools, and non-governmental organizations, especially those that help individuals with substance abuse disorder. The study showed that although agencies focus forfeiture on reducing crime, their main aim is to receive the proceeds for their activities. The war on drugs does not eliminate the use and abuse in the current days because they aim to take the profits and use them for self or office benefit.

Holcomb, Kovandzic, and Williams (2011) found that believed that the financial gains that are received from forfeitures might negatively influence the behavior of law enforcement. Using forfeiture data from the Law Enforcement Management Administration Statistics (LEMAS) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), research was conducted using previous yearly forfeiture activity to determine the impact of forfeiture laws and how they affected police behavior. The studies indicated financial incentive does influences law enforcement agencies. Moreover, the local and state agencies bypass their laws and are using equitable sharing when their laws are less financially rewarding. Holcomb et al. 2018 found that law enforcement agencies use various strategies to generate maximum revenue from their seizure. To obtain the greatest proceeds, the agencies choose federal government procedures if state laws are less rewarding. The single strategy used to characterize forfeiture laws is inadequate, making the agencies to use the equitable sharing payment method. The powerful motivations to make profits from forfeiture distract the original role of fighting crime. Police departments depend on public and private resources for their operations. The officials do not manage the activities of the police because they have various ways of generating revenues. The studies also indicated that police agencies focus on the financial rewards and legal burdens of the state and compare them to those of the federal equitable sharing to determine the process of asset forfeiture (Holcomb et al., 2018).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the federal, state, and local governments give power to police agencies to seize and forfeit property, cash, and other resources connected to illegal activity. Forfeiture laws allow the agencies to keep, destroy, or sell the property or proceeds to maintain their operations. Depending on state laws, the proceeds are used to facilitate law enforcement or purchase necessary equipment. However, some jurisdictions also allocated the forfeited funds to healthcare services, schools, and non-governmental organizations, especially those that help individuals with substance abuse disorder. Asset forfeiture is an effective tool because it takes away the proceeds of criminal activities such as drug business. However, the tool has been highly criticized for it is easily manipulated by the police officers to finance their operations. The agencies use the power given to them by state and federal procedures to generate maximum revenues from illegal activities. States have been changing forfeiture laws to include high standards of proof and innocent owner protection to protect private properties. Policymakers should reform forfeiture laws to protect private and public properties.

References

Cassella, S. D. (2018). Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States. In The Palgrave Handbook of Criminal and Terrorism Financing Law (pp. 427-446). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from http://assetforfeiturelaw.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Chapter-for-Colin-King.pdf

Williams, M. R. (2002, September 1). In Civil Asset Forfeiture: Where does the Money Go? Criminal Justice Review, 27(2), 321-329. Retrieved June 4, 2020, from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/doi/pdf.