And I agreed with you on that point. See...Which completely and utterly ignores the majority of the act which clearly states that you don't have to have been arrested, charged or even found guilty for this to happen.
They are talking about suspects here.
I even quoted you directly the part of the act that shows you they can mistakenly charge you, you get get acquitted and they still can seize your assets. And once again, no it is not easy to prove that you didn't gain them illegally, I've cited the burden of proof from the actual act, I've cited Australian layers saying its not easy. That you have a bank account and audit trail doesn't automatically make it easy, as with Money Laundering you also have both, and based on the standard and burden required, the law could claim that and it would be on you to prove that's not the case (and you don't get to prove it to a balance of probability, that's their (low) hurdle to pass.
(account was supposed to read accountant)I'm in agreeance with you here that it should still be up to the police to prove your guilt (by forensic account or similar), not the other way around.
You previously left that rather important bit out and as there was no link how was I to know this? It changes a lot, but it still reeks of 'play stupid games' though. He did after all knowingly put himself in that position by using his house to commit a crime and it could still have been argued that he used his house to conceal the crop. I don't think it's a coincidence that I've never seen a rental property seized from it's owners here when used in this manner.Take the guy growing weed for personal use. The criminal court agreed that he never made a penny in profit from doing so, that it was all for personal use, they agreed 100% that the house wasn't a proceed or crime, at a later hearing a judge actually agreed that the house shouldn't be classed as the location of a crime to the standard required to seize it. The act is however written in such a manner that the same judge was powerless to return the house, the homeowner and his family never got the property back and the amount of compensation received (as it was a civil matter) didn't come close to covering his mortgage (he still had to pay that) or legal fees. So case law and the legal system show that it's not easy at all to prove this and even if you do it doesn't mean you will get your property back, yet you expect us to believe it's in fact easy because of?
Edit: Apologies for stuffing this quote up but I'm still struggling with the new format on this site. And I've had to re-do this twice now due to this whole edit disappearing
''Does it appear less likely to be abused in Australia/UK than in the US? It has one extra step, so potentially yes, however what also became clear was that the requirements to record and report statistics on it in the UK and Australia are almost non-existent, and if as a tool it's being mainly used against marginal groups (and I suspect it is), then we may simply not be hearing about it to the same degree we do in the US.
You're at the point now where it's honestly coming across that you don't 'want' this to be true, rather than being able to present any actual reasoned reply.''
Another possibility is that the statistics actually are almost non-existent unlike in the US. I can also certainly see why the media wouldn't report on something that doesn't seem to be happening.
Regarding the marginal groups these laws have been brought in to target, you're right, I have absolutely no sympathy for them if the property/money was in fact proven to be proceeds of crime or unlawful wealth. And by proven I mean by the police and prosecutors (I missed the prosecutors earlier because of being time poor at the moment and not being able to give this topic as much attention as I probably should), not the other way round.