Police seize £67K cash from man because "he could not prove where the money came from

[KentPhilip]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8033442.stm

Using the new "Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA)"

Now I had thought this act would be a good way to recover money from criminals. But this is a blatent abuse of this process because there is no direct evidence that the money is dirty, only an absence of evidence that the money is legitimate.

The police are a bunch of thieves

[Mich the Tester]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8033442.stm

Using the new "Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA)"

Now I had thought this act would be a good way to recover money from criminals. But this is a blatent abuse of this process because there is no direct evidence that the money is dirty, only an absence of evidence that the money is legitimate.

The police are a bunch of thieves

NuLabour stormtroopers

[TheRefactornator]

NuLabour stormtroopers

I do hope they beat him within an inch of his life prior to confiscation

[AtW]

They should ask owner of a certain -ski football club to explain his fortune.

[PRC1964]

I do hope they beat him within an inch of his life prior to confiscation

he slipped and fell

[dang65]

He should have just said he found it. Then, if no one claimed it after six months or whatever, they'd have to give it back to him. (I think that's how it works?)

[Zippy]

No evidence? No problem.
He's lucky he doesn't have a turban and a beard or he'd be in Belmarsh.

[ace00]

The police are a bunch of thieves

Sounds like a tune to me.........

[Menelaus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8033442.stm

Using the new "Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA)"

Now I had thought this act would be a good way to recover money from criminals. But this is a blatent abuse of this process because there is no direct evidence that the money is dirty, only an absence of evidence that the money is legitimate.

The police are a bunch of thieves

This IS a worry.

The Assets Recovery Agency that was much-trumpeted as a way of recovering assets from people who were "obviously crooks, but we couldn't prove it in court" is a very real and very full-on concern. Surely if TheState cannot prove that you're a crook, then TheState should have no right to seize your goods?

It was rolled into SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) when SOCA was founded.

[Pondlife]

"Specific criminal conduct need not be proved. "

"It is enough to show that the cash is probably related to one of a number of kinds of activity, any one of which would have been unlawful, for example, cheating the revenue, trading in counterfeit goods, drug supply or falsely claiming state benefits."


WTF is happening here.