Government Seizes Vehicles Worth $1 Million; Brings No Charges, Keeps The Cars
from the where-'due-process'-is-commonly-abbreviated-as-'GFY' dept
Asset forfeiture: drop the charges, keep the property. I guess the person behind Saeki Co., Ltd. should feel appreciative he actually was graced with charges, rather than just had his purchased vehicles seized and spirited away with a mumbled explanation and some dodgy paperwork.
Saeki Co. bought several luxury vehicles from a place called Texas Motors (which, oddly enough, is located in Florida) with the intent to sell them for a significant markup to wealthy Japanese citizens. This is possibly illegal, but not because of any explicit export ban. The only reason it verges on illegal is because resellers like Saeki ever-so-lightly tread on the toes of major manufacturers and their authorized dealers who do the same thing.
The true legality of the situation is undetermined. The feds behind the first seizures of soon-to-be-exported vehicles didn't seem to have a firm grasp on the matter. They certainly felt it was illegal, and this feeling resulted in plenty of seizures, but these agencies didn't have any crystal-clear guidance on the matter.
The crackdown was driven largely by agents with the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security, who questioned whether these small export companies were violating federal law by using straw buyers — people paid small sums to buy cars — to conceal that the vehicles were being bought by people who had no intention of keeping them and were using cash from other people to make the acquisitions. Federal authorities have argued that using straw buyers is a deceptive practice that potentially deprives American consumers of a chance to buy the luxury cars and limits the ability of automakers to keep tight control over sales to domestic dealers and to foreign countries.It's not so much the American public losing a few opportunities to buy a luxury vehicle as it is the other thing: tight control of sales. The American public can't get many laws written in its favor, but large industries certainly can. This initial thrust led to lots and lots of partnerships with local law enforcement agencies conveniently located near shipping docks. And this led to lots and lots of luxury vehicles ending up in the hands of law enforcement.
Then, the government stopped the crackdown. It claimed to be making an effort to more tightly focus its forfeiture efforts as a result of Eric Holder's reform initiative. The appearance of being an errand boy for corporate interests certainly didn't help. Cases were dropped and charges dismissed. But the vehicles remained in the government's hands.
One person in Saeki Co.'s position spent two years fighting for the return of a seized vehicle and $125,000 in cash. This followed about a dozen similar settlements, most occuring after a legal battle with the agency(ies) holding the vehicles. In other cases, the prevailing parties still have yet to be fully recompensed. And others are still being prosecuted for violating a law the federal government isn't entirely clear on and has lost an interest in enforcing.
Saeki Co.'s story is the worst of the potential situations. It had eight vehicles worth nearly $900,000 seized at the Long Beach Seaport by customs agents. This happened January 3, 2013. Two months later, customs agents seized another of its vehicles (worth over $100,000) in Seattle. Two-and-a-half years later, the feds have abandoned everything about the case but Saeki's vehicles. And it simply doesn't want to talk about the seized property.
Despite the Government’s change in policy, Plaintiff has not received administrative relief from CBP nor any communication from the Government justifying its seizure of Plaintiff’s vehicles.Other than the fact that it won't be bringing criminal charges.
In or about early 2014, Assistant United States Attorney David Lazarus advised Plaintiff’s counsel that the federal grand jury investigation undertaken in the Middle District of Florida had concluded without any criminal charge lodged against Plaintiff or any of its agents.So, no criminal activity but the government still wants to keep the cars -- which were seized under a vague "felony interference of a business model" law.
Plaintiff’s vehicles were seized by CBP not because of any wrongdoing by Plaintiff, but because of an ill-conceived program by the Government to support a vehicle export monopoly at the expense of the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other vehicle exporters.As the complaint points out, the government's unwillingness to respond to the plaintiff is swiftly rendering the vehicles worthless. Overseas purchasers willing to pay above US domestic retail for luxury vehicles are most likely going to want this year's model, not something that's been sitting around a government warehouse for almost three years. (And that's not taking into consideration the possibility the vehicles may have racked up miles as government agents' "work vehicles" or the occasional "drive it like you seized it" joyride.)
Then there's the simple fact that a newly-purchased vehicle starts leaking resale value the instant a purchaser drives it off the lot.
Using the generally accepted average vehicle depreciation rate of 20% in the first model year and 15% in subsequent years, the value of Plaintiff’s property has decreased in value by approximately $375,891.00 since their seizure. This measure increases every day that the Government fails to return the seized vehicles to Plaintiff.Much of the filing details "conversations" with the government about the return of the vehicles, most of which went something like this.
SAEKI CO.: So, there's no criminal charges? This means we can have our cars back, right?The lawsuit repeatedly makes claims about Saeki Co. being deprived of due process. Which it has been. But civil asset forfeiture isn't about due process. These statutes provide -- from the very start -- a way for the government to bypass the protections due process affords to citizens. The cases themselves indicate that clearly. It's not the government versus any named individual or company. It's the government against the seized property itself, which cannot advocate in its own defense and can only be spoken for if the government grants the request.
GOV'T:
So, while the company is absolutely right about being deprived of this right, in terms of asset forfeiture, this right simply does not exist. This lawsuit may force a response from the government, but it's a step it doesn't consider to be "appropriate" in terms of disputing seizures.
What Saeki does have going for it is the government's ambivalence towards the "law" it claimed Saeki broke. If nothing else, a judge will be asking the government a few tough questions about how its ongoing non-prosecution has managed to tie up not-guilty vehicles for the better part of three years. Given the racket that asset forfeiture is, that's about the best that can be hoped for.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, dhs, homeland security, luxury cars, seizure
Companies: saeki co., texas motors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not correct.
It is just plain theft. Call it what you want -
Theft by Thugs; Robbery at Badge Point; or any other fancy terms - but it is still the taking without real justification or compensation and needs to be shut down.
Shame us poor citizens don't have anyone representing us or our needs in our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree 100%
Remember when Americans made fun of Russia and Nazi Germany and other countries whose government officials just stole whatever they wanted from citizens? What about the old-fashioned "tax" collectors who took the tax and whatever else they wanted?
The U.S. -- and all states -- are just as bad.
We don't live in the country falsely taught about in schools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Done.
How to fix:
Get rid of political parties.
Remove money from politics and elections. The two ARE different if one has been paying attention.
Replace all bureacrats with unencumbered drones (might take a while).
The above will take at least six years, Six years we can hardly afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: distant perception
ray jones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naturally
Mind, I'm sure the judge would still rubber-stamp the warrant, they're pretty spineless when it comes to anything the police want, but if it went public it wouldn't look too good, and neither police nor judges want that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How?
I've seen tons of court cases say that based on the law this passes due process. Can we start attacking the law on 5th amendment grounds that the government took property with out paying for it?
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Any use by the government (other then perhaps storage awaiting due process) should qualify. Heck, its super easy and even better as you don't have to prove anything but "The government took something of mine, the government has never compensated me for this"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?
Spartacus & The Chain Gang
Hint: Rent your luxury cars, as needed. The corporate citizens have more influence.p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are the good guys and these brave heroes stopped a serious anti-American activity that threatened Democracy itself!
You dont want to seem like a crazy tinfoilhatt'r right? Or do you hate Freedom?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can someone point out for me the part in the US Constitution that covers asset forfeiture?
Not that this hasn't happened with the Extrajudicial Detention and Interrogation program, but at least we recognize that was outside any implementation of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove's the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prove's the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prove's the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prove's the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove's the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove's the point
When corporations paid for politicians. They contribute to their campaigns and offer them revolving door favors. When you have enough money to afford a politician then you can talk. Until then you have no rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove's the point
Well... you might want to check how black people(at the time slaves) got their rights and became people. Then check how many corps applied for the same thing in this year.
To make it short. More corps than black ex slaves applied for the right to be a person in that year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prove's the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a way, poor people with no "seizable" assets are the luck ones. When's the last time you heard of some homeless' shopping carts emptied of their contents by "govt" people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police robbing the homeless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: government theift
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I (not a US person) was under the impression that this was made part of US law because the British Crown was in the habit of confiscating the assets of the colonists. This, alongside the other amendments such as the right to bear arms, and to have free speech, were a reaction to elements of British repression.
So, how come this hasn't been challenged constitutionally in the courts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How come?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How come?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In practice maybe, but in reality, the right plainly exists right in the fifth amendment, and no law constitutionally can abridge the right.
Just because a right is continually violated, does not mean it doesn't exist...just further reinforces the indignity of the rights violation that occurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waitwaitwait... didn't the Supreme Court rule in the Kirtsaeng case, a couple years ago, that no such anti-arbitrage right exists? Or does that only apply to publishers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sounds like our govt catch phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'The' Government is OUR Government
This is an obvious truth that shouldn't be hard for anyone to grasp at all. The way it is phrased here is like referring to your own mother as 'the mother', not only is this impolite, it's also kind of stupid.
If we can't get a grip on this we'll likely never be able to correct the injustices you guys work so hard to expose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gubmint seizure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they dropped the charges because it wasn't Illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government is allowing the same thing in animal rescues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]