Comment by s73v3r_
7 years ago
Right, but that's an argument for after the crime has been proven. It's not an argument for seizing property just on the thought that one might be involved in crime.
7 years ago
Right, but that's an argument for after the crime has been proven. It's not an argument for seizing property just on the thought that one might be involved in crime.
The counter-argument here would be that the drug dealer should not be able to use the cash(and other assets) they obtained through their crimes to defend themselves. Waiting until conviction would mean that the alleged criminal could exhaust those assets as part of his defense.
I don't think that counter argument can be made. Until the crime is proven, the assumption has to be that those assets were gotten legally. Otherwise, really, what's to stop police from seizing the assets of anyone who's case might be shaky?