zlacker

>>Ozarki+(OP)
Will he get his possesions back then?

50,676 bitcoins, today valued at 5,3 billion USD.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-h...

>>bdhcui+E9
If they were from the commission of a crime, then no.

>>bb88+qb
It's a full pardon; there is no crime.

>>idlewo+Xd
That's not how it works. The money can still be guilty of a crime outside of the Defendant's acquittal in civil cases like this.

source: hundreds of hours in forfeiture court

>>qingch+tg
Civil asset forfeiture should not be considered constitutional, and some day a test case will make it to the SCOTUS. As for this case though... the pardon does not make Ulbritch innocent! On the contrary, accepting the pardon implies guilt. So the pardon need not and might not extend to forfeitures. Though it's also possible that the presidential pardon could extend to the forfeitures, but I suspect that's a constitutional grey area.

>>crypto+Po
Cases have made it to the Supreme Court --- recently! --- and it held up just fine. This is another message board fixation. I'm sure it's abused all over the place. It wasn't in this case.

>>tptace+ur
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/16740-civil-forfeiture-d... ?

That's not very conclusive.

>>crypto+kw
What part of this makes you thing CAF is on shaky constitutional ground? This is a CAF case with reach-y fact patterns for the government and they won it handily. We didn't even get close to the question of whether CAF is itself constitutional; the court simply presumed it.