Asset seizures !

There has been a veritable " armada  of  complaints " about investigations carried out by the New South Wales Crime Commission.  In particular, this crime fighting agency is concerned with the seizure of assets which are gained through criminal activity.

Asset seizures tend to skate close to the fine edge of the law.   We hold to the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty, and yet as soon as a charge is laid there is a rush to seize assets and take them out of the control of the owner.    In most cases, an actual trial will be many months away - and in some cases - it will be years before the defendant faces a judge.

This asset seizure tends to err on the side of caution.   The attitude seems to be " grab everything possible - and argue the merits of the case later ".   In many cases, this leaves the family of the accused with a sharply reduced standard of living.   Children may be attending expensive private schools.  Motor vehicles, boats and holiday homes have been scooped up in the net - and then there is the necessity of financing a legal defence.

The system allows for a funding release to cover " necessary expenses ", but obviously this becomes a matter of contention.  The words  " Necessary " and " Reasonable " are open to interpretation - and rarely will both parties agree.

In particular, the cost of mounting a legal defence is a sticking point.   A person accused of a crime which will involve a long period in gaol will opt for the best possible level of representation - and that will be expensive.

Obviously the whole point of asset seizures is to contain ill gotten gains until the court makes a decision on guilt or innocence - and to prevent the accused from squirrelling away money to put it out of reach of the authorities.  But this tends to deliver a form of punishment - before a court had delivered a verdict.

And then there is the matter of loss while those assets are in the hands of the authorities.  The owner is prevented from dealing in shares and properties while they are in limbo - so who is responsible if their value decreases.   Is the owner entitled to compensation when they are returned to his or her control ?

The public generally agrees that criminals should not profit from illegal activity, but it is questionable whether asset seizure  should take place before - or after a court has delivered a verdict.     It seems to fly in the face of the maxim of " innocent until proved guilty ! "