undefined | Better HN

0 pointsquesera3y ago0 comments

Deprivation of access to property is not quite the same as deprivation of property.

And there is plenty of legal precedent (and justification) for freezing funds in advance of charging.

This line of argument is a dead end.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

mbg7213y ago· 2 in thread

In the context of banking, I would call it at least a dirty-trick. If you're saying "How can you pay a lawyer if you cannot...speak???", then you're not the good-guy.

queseraOP3y ago

The contextual assertion is that the frozen funds were obtained by non-lawful process.

Allowing access to those funds for your defense is not automatic.

Sometimes a judge will partially ease restrictions. And of course a lawyer will be provided for you. :-/

It's reasonable on the surface of things, but mistakes can be devastating. The US legal system often fails to handle the "mistake" case well, despite some intended protections.

mbg7213y ago

The US legal system doesn't care very much if it's those specific dollars or other dollars that have a dirty history. If, God forbid, I'm ever arrested for something, I don't trust those "intended protections" very much.

newZWhoDis3y ago

Nonsense. Depriving you of access to your property indefinitely is no different than depriving you entirely.

The government is welcome to charge and deprive, then provide a speedy trial to that end.

That’s not what is happening though and you know it, they know it, their collaborators know it. Everyone involved here deserves jail time, and in a just world they will see it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse