Onus of proof !

Most people would applaud moves to strip drug lords of their flashy cars and opulent lifestyles and put them behind bars for a very long time.  The " Proceeds of crime " law is the weapon that makes this happen - but first the culprit must be convicted of a crime.   Only then can the police swoop and start confiscating assets - and some clever criminals manage to evade a successful prosecution.

A new law is passing through Federal parliament to replace existing Commonwealth laws and strengthen police powers.  It is titled the " Unexplained wealth and other measures " bill and it is aimed at suspected national crime figures living on " dirty money ".

When this becomes law, the police will be able to seize accounting records,bank statements, pay slips and whatever computer hard drives that apply and prevent money from being transferred overseas and out of reach of Australian law.    The sticking point is that the accused will not have to first been convicted of some sort of crime for seizure to apply.

It reverses the " Onus of proof " that is the basis of our law system, alongside the tenet that we are " innocent until proven guilty ".  Obviously, there is the assumption that this will only be applied to notorious crime figures but a law that allows the police to proceed purely on " the suspicion " of unexplained wealth opens a wide door to abuse.

It legitimizes what are referred to as " fishing expeditions " - where police invent a reason to go through a suspects records in the hope of uncovering evidence of a crime.   Basically, it requires every Australian citizen to be fully accountable for every dollar in their possession and every item in their home - and to explain that accountability with relevant records when required by the police.

That is a blunt instrument that can be used as a financial weapon.   Not only is it time consuming, but assembling the records to prove innocence drags the matter into the public domain.  The finger of suspicion is pointed when others are called to testify and support the collation of evidence that assets were legally obtained - and bought with money that was legally earned.

It has the capability of being used as a " smear " to damage reputations and this could be used to devastating effect in both the business and political worlds.   The accused is required to provide the necessary explanations for wealth, but the police are not required to provide a valid reason for demanding that information.

It opens the door for " unintended consequences. " !     Granting any sort of new power in a legal sense is a balance of outcome.    Blunting the use of technology by criminals to evade the law is an essential role of law enforcement, but when it creates an avenue to harass ordinary citizens without legal recourse it takes Australian law into the realms of the dreaded " police state " from which many flee to this country as asylum seekers.

Framing this law needs careful use of checks and balances !