UK Government's Latest Take On Asset Forfeiture Is Pretty Much 'You Can't Afford That!'

from the we'll-be-the-judge-of-that,-said-the-gov't-to-the-judge dept

The UK government has adopted a spin on asset forfeiture so brazenly abusive of citizens, American cops are probably kicking themselves for not thinking of it first.

Dutch law enforcement raised the bar for forfeiture-related audacity early last year when they promised to start taking the literal clothes off people's back if it didn't seem like they had the (legal) funds to afford high-end designer wear. Dutch officials said a lot of things about gaudy timepieces but made it clear shirts and pants might follow if deemed sufficiently expensive.

The UK has this beat. As Walter Olson opines for the Washington Examiner, the UK plan does away with all the comparative politeness of American asset forfeiture. There will be no fishing expeditions masquerading as traffic stops. There will be no pre-dawn raids predicated on tips by informants whose trustworthiness is only exceeded by their willingness to commit crimes using taxpayer dollars.

As Olson points out, all UK law enforcement needs to do is claim "You can't afford that!" in front of a sufficiently-credulous magistrate.

It's like, "Your papers, please," but for things you own.

Authorities in Britain have begun trying out a new police power called unexplained wealth orders under a law that took effect last year. The police go to a court and say you're living way above any known legitimate income. The judge then signs an order compelling you to show that your possessions (whether a house, fancy car, or jewelry) have been obtained honestly and not with dirty money. In the meantime, the boat or artwork or other assets get frozen, and you can't sell them until you've shown you obtained them innocently.

The entire burden of proof resides on the UK resident the government has accused of living beyond their means. Don't have receipts? Well, I guess the government gets to keep your stuff.

The origin of this stupid law is the sort of thing that conjures calls for the guillotine from the rabble.

The first person named as a target of the law was Zamira Hajiyeva, whose story could make even an oligarch blush, assisted by a small fortune in purchases from Harrods cosmetics and perfume counters. Hajiyeva's husband is serving time after being convicted of extracting at least $100 million from Azerbaijan's state-controlled bank, of which he was chairman. She's fighting extradition to that country herself.

In the meantime, her possessions include a £12 million London house and a golf course on the outskirts. Details of Hajiyeva's wild Harrods spending sprees were neatly captured for authorities and readers by the store's loyalty card program. They included a £1,190,000 Cartier diamond ring and tens of thousands at a Godiva chocolate shop, adding up to $20 million over a decade. The high-end London store reserved two bespoke parking spots for her. She used at least 54 credit cards, many issued by the state-controlled bank her husband ran.

I know, right? But government officials might want to remember it wasn't just the filthy rich that ended up under the blade. It was also members of the ruling class, including the inbreeders at the top wearing crowns.

There are some caveats:

First, there has to be some suspicion the person whose property is being targeted is suspected of violating a crime. It's not a very high bar but it's something. Second, this power is being handed over to tax collectors, so it's not just suspected links to violent criminal activities being utilized.

As Olson points out, the definition of "serious crime" in the UK covers such innocuous activities as running an unlicensed gambling operation, even if your gambling site pays all winning bets and otherwise operates as least as cleanly as the licensed ones do.

All caveats aside, this is fucked up. It doesn't require the government to prove anything about a person's wealth or criminal activities. It allows the government to freeze assets and, eventually, keep them, if the person accused can't come up with proof their possessions were purchased with clean money. Considering the meandering flow of cash around the world (and the intricacies of international banking), who's going to have acceptable evidence on hand when the government starts seizing property?

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, uk, unexplained wealth