WA asset confiscation laws

bunsen burner · Dec 16, 2004

This is outrageous:

http://www.thewestaustralian.com.au/20041216/news/general/tw-news-general-home-sto130043.html

___________________________________________
$100,000 shock for dealer

__________________________________________________

I don't undertsand how this could have possibly been passed through parliament. The Govt. should not be able to confiscate legally acquired money. WA seems to be living up to it's redneck reputation.

Total Package · Dec 17, 2004

Guess she shouldnt have become a drug dealer!!!

There was another case not long ago where a woman lost her house because her husband who she had seperated from 3 years earlier went off the rails and because a drug dealer..... and even though she was seperated from him she was liable and lost her house under these laws.

I really have no problem with them. Should stop drug dealing in Perth pretty quickly.

bunsen burner · Dec 17, 2004

Total Package said:
Guess she shouldnt have become a drug dealer!!!

There was another case not long ago where a woman lost her house because her husband who she had seperated from 3 years earlier went off the rails and because a drug dealer..... and even though she was seperated from him she was liable and lost her house under these laws.

I really have no problem with them. Should stop drug dealing in Perth pretty quickly.

1. Any evidence that punishment stops crime? Many US states have the death penalty and it makes little difference. You're naive if you think this will stop or noticeably reduce drug dealing.

2. What right does should a Govt have to confiscate legally gotten gains? Proceeds of crime, no problems, but legally acquired money? That's ridiculous.

Total Package · Dec 17, 2004

bunsen burner said:
1. Any evidence that punishment stops crime? Many US states have the death penalty and it makes little difference. You're naive if you think this will stop or noticeably reduce drug dealing.

2. What right does should a Govt have to confiscate legally gotten gains? Proceeds of crime, no problems, but legally acquired money? That's ridiculous.

Well whats to say she hadnt siphoned the money to her grandmother so that she didnt lo se it under this law.... If you are selling drugs and you have made $500,000 from illegal selling and you get caught what are you going to do? first thing is give most of it away because you know if you dont the govt will take it. Thats why this other woman lost her house because there is nothing to say the house wasn't bought with money frmo the proceeds of crime.

It may not stop everyone but it will stop some and the more drug dealers we get off the streets the better.

Dry Rot · Dec 17, 2004

bunsen burner said:
This is outrageous:

I don't undertsand how this could have possibly been passed through parliament. The Govt. should not be able to confiscate legally acquired money. WA seems to be living up to it's redneck reputation.

Totally agree, BB.

There is no nexus between the dealing and the subsequent inheritance.

Absurd.

bunsen burner · Dec 17, 2004

Total Package said:
Well whats to say she hadnt siphoned the money to her grandmother so that she didnt lo se it under this law....

If they can prove that the money hasn't come from legal means then they can confiscate it. If not, then they shouldn't be able to touch it.

In most cases it isn't hard to ascertain if the money has come from legal sources.

If you are selling drugs and you have made $500,000 from illegal selling and you get caught what are you going to do? first thing is give most of it away because you know if you dont the govt will take it.

Defeats the purpose don't you think? If you give the money away before you get caught then it defeats the purpose and money given away after you've been caught can be traced.

It may not stop everyone but it will stop some and the more drug dealers we get off the streets the better.

Will just mean less drug dealers but each with a bigger market slice. Nothing will really change.

Now do you still think it's fair that a govt can confiscate money that is proven to be lawfully gained?

Dry Rot · Dec 17, 2004

Total Package said:
There was another case not long ago where a woman lost her house because her husband who she had seperated from 3 years earlier went off the rails and because a drug dealer..... and even though she was seperated from him she was liable and lost her house under these laws.

I really have no problem with them. Should stop drug dealing in Perth pretty quickly.

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but please explain why a wife who has seperated from her husband 3 years ago should be held in any way responsible (and liable)for his behaviour after the separation?

Total Package · Dec 17, 2004

Dry Rot said:
Maybe I'm a bit slow, but please explain why a wife who has seperated from her husband 3 years ago should be held in any way responsible (and liable)for his behaviour after the separation?

because they had only seperated... not legally divorced.

Docker_Brat · Dec 17, 2004

I was under the impression that the law was brought in to seize assets gained through illicit means, which is fair enough. Unless the grandparents were dealers as well, it hardly seems right in this case.

Dry Rot · Dec 17, 2004

Total Package said:
because they had only seperated... not legally divorced.

I must be real slow. Please explain the diff here and its relevance.

Total Package · Dec 17, 2004

Dry Rot said:
I must be real slow. Please explain the diff here and its relevance.

You dont understand the difference between seperated and divorced???

Dry Rot · Dec 17, 2004

Total Package said:
You dont understand the difference between seperated and divorced???

You tell me when it comes to property.

Mr Q · Dec 17, 2004

Must admit, that seems waaaaay over the top.

The only way I could see that being even remotely fair would be if it could be proven that she had deliberately removed that amount of cash earned from drug dealing from being found and the inheritance was taken in lieu of unrecoverable drug assets.

TP: The house thing - that's just wrong on all counts.

Total Package · Dec 17, 2004

Mr Q said:
TP: The house thing - that's just wrong on all counts.

Is it? Ok what happens if I was to go into drug dealing.... like this guy did... and go to Sydney to live and do my dealing there... my wife is back in Perth and the money is coming back to her from me in Sydney... for all intents and
purposes we are apparantly "seperated"...... I get done for drug dealing... and they freeze my assets which is almost nothing.... when in reality the money is with my apparantly seperated wife back in Perth. So this guy gets off scott free... his wife keeps the money and when he gets out of jail he is rich from the proceeds of drug dealing. That would become a huge loophole.

Dry Rot · Dec 17, 2004

Dry Rot said:
You tell me when it comes to property.

Having difficulty with this one, TP?

Mr Q · Dec 17, 2004

Total Package said:
Is it? Ok what happens if I was to go into drug dealing.... like this guy did... and go to Sydney to live and do my dealing there... my wife is back in Perth and the money is coming back to her from me in Sydney... for all intents and purposes we are apparantly "seperated"...... I get done for drug dealing... and they freeze my assets which is almost nothing.... when in reality the money is with my apparantly seperated wife back in Perth. So this guy gets off scott free... his wife keeps the money and when he gets out of jail he is rich from the proceeds of drug dealing. That would become a huge loophole.

The point in this case is that you'd have to actually prove the "separation" was a scam. The easiest way would be to put a watch on the movement of funds - if he ends up profiting in the future from funds his wife had, then sure, confiscate them. If however, he doesn't get one cent, then no.

Anyway, if he was channelling the funds back to Perth as you suggested, then that would be fairly obvious, and would be a fair case to prove the couple weren't actually separated at all.

- PC - · Dec 17, 2004

Dry Rot said:
Maybe I'm a bit slow, but please explain why a wife who has seperated from her husband 3 years ago should be held in any way responsible (and liable)for his behaviour after the separation?

Yet the 70 year old parents of a convicted drug dealer are still living in their house after been convicted of a massive drug find in their ceiling...'' we thought it was less than 9 plants''

I agree with the law but not how it is applied. I dont agree the separated woman should lose her house. Does a piece of paper (decree nisi) constitute absolution from crime? If it does then what difference is there in long term separation.

I also dont agree in the inherited money been confiscated. It says to me if I am convicted of a crime in 2004 and inherit money in 2010 then I will lose it? WRONG.

My belief was that if the convicted of a drug crime you had to PROVE the assets were acquired without the proceeds from crime. One stupid berk registered 6 houses on one day..

gadj1976 · Dec 17, 2004

I think it's fair for embezzlement crimes and the like - that the govt can repossess ill gotten gains - but this is a bit over the top IMO.

Log In or Create New Account

WA asset confiscation laws

Hall of Famer

Premiership Player

Hall of Famer

Premiership Player

My recipe is better than yours

Hall of Famer

My recipe is better than yours

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

My recipe is better than yours

Premiership Player

My recipe is better than yours

Brownlow Medallist

Premiership Player

My recipe is better than yours

Brownlow Medallist

Hall of Famer

Club Legend

Similar threads