436

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13145612

(edit) Would someone please ship some counterfeit money through there and get it confiscated, so the police can then be investigated for spending counterfeit money?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 28 points 4 days ago

I bet those good boys spend it all in toys and snacks. Lol

Edit: Nvm the dogs don't get to keep the money.

[-] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

So it is theft twice then. First from the sender, then from the good boys and girls who find it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 24 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

However, that is extremely difficult, because the assets themselves — inanimate objects — are listed as the defendants, and such cases often tie the money up in long and challenging legal proceedings.

The money is being treated as a defendant.

No surprise that FedEx isn't union.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

It's a massive violation of our Constitutional rights, but it turns out it is fine to do because of playing some games pretending the object is the defendant.

[-] loutr@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago

The money is being treated as a defendant.

Saw this shit in a movie last week, it sounded too dumb to be true...

[-] MethodicalSpark@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I too watched ‘Rebel Ridge’ last week on Netflix.

[-] ColonelThirtyTwo@pawb.social 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

First money being speech, now they're giving money rights! /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 87 points 5 days ago

Indiana law requires any assets seized in a civil forfeiture case to go directly to the school fund — likely to mitigate the moral hazard and incentive to steal citizens’ assets — but little money is actually going to that fund. Instead, police departments are keeping it for themselves, and a 2019 Indiana Supreme Court case upheld that, allowing police, prosecutors or private lawyers contracted to carry out the cases to keep a minimum of 90%.

Naked corruption.

Something similar happened to me. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) seized money from a bank transfer paying rent to my landlord (years ago). It took five days of calls to the bank to find out why the transfer didn't go through. I got a case number and filled out paperwork disputing it (with OFAC) and the letter I received in response said they had no record of the case.

The best I could hypothesize what happened was that because my landlord had a Middle Eastern-sounding name, maybe this was suspected to relate to terrorism. I gave up. I knew it wasn't worth my time to pursue because to get justice, I'd have to invest more time and energy than the cash was worth. I nearly got evicted because of this shit and I still judged the bureaucracy too great to address (I think I made the right choice; no sense fighting the government unless my freedom is on the line or it's some huge sum of money).

I got money orders at the post office and deposited them directly into my landlord's bank account after that. Huge pain in the ass to make sure my money went where I wanted. I live in a building owned by a corporation, now. I don't think I'd rent from a private citizen again because of that bullshit. (It's not like I'll ever own a home, given that I like living in the Bay Area.)

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Since it’s a small amount of money, the legal process would be with small claims court. You don’t need a lawyer for that. Small claims is cheap and easy going. It’s typically under $100 to file (which you get back if you win) and in some states a registered letter is sufficient to serve the other party.

You would not want to sue OFAC though. In this case you would ideally keep a paper trail of your payment attempt and carry on. Give your landlord the proof of payment (attempt) and wait for the landlord to act against you. That’s the easiest.. you wait for the court date and show up with proof of your attempt to pay and a copy of your landlord’s payment procedure (which you followed). OFAC apparently did a money grab on the landlord, not you, so you would come away clean so long as you paid as per your landlord’s instructions.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

That's not going to work for long. Best you're going to get is a stay until you pay. Might as well make it right with the landlord while you actually do take OFAC to small claims court. Because they'll find it then.

But also, this is what your Congress critter is for. All kinds of things get magically resolved when the congressional office of the honorable so and so makes an inquiry.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago

That’s wild!

You ever check OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals list for your landlord?

Two plot twists that come to mind: landlord was actually ISIS with a great cover story, bank manager stole the money and made up a case number.

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 5 points 4 days ago

Tbh strictly speaking the bank probably shouldn't have told him anything about the OFAC intervention, they're not supposed to tip off in these circumstances - so it could well have been a made.up number.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It’s really annoying that @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org just took this on the chin. For me even a dispute over $100 would be worth the courtroom battle just to satisfy my curiousity of what happened. A landlord cannot evict without a court procedure, so the tenant would not have to spend a dime on court costs and bring the paper trail to the court. From there, since the banks (all 3 involved) did a shitty job of investigating, they could have been named as 2nd party defendants (sue them all, let the judge sort it out). The investigation should have revealed the bank where the money landed and the actual bank account from there. They could then use the court to subpoena the agency that has “no record of the case”, but who the bank says has the money. If there is no case, then they can return the money (a judge would say).

OFAC obviously benefitted from someone’s court phobia even though the tenant had nothing to worry about.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah, well my mental health was a greater priority as I was in a shitty place for a number of years. I'm not here to be a crusader when I'm barely staying alive. (That time of my life has happily been in the rearview mirror for a while now.)

[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 48 points 4 days ago

So people should sue FedEx and let FedEx either stop transporting through the state or sue the state with those deep pockets. Or idk maybe the doj should fucking take this up as they are now fucking with interstate commerce and committing felonies as a state.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago

The institute for justice FIRE and a couple other major civil rights organizations have been working working on getting civil forfeiture over turned and made unconstitutional for decades now

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 103 points 5 days ago

ACAB, but that headline gave me a chuckle, at just how fucking blatantly criminal, and more importantly immoral, but also so so ridiculous they are. Can't you just picture a bunch of cops in full tactical gear standing around in some room in a post office, patting each other on the back as they successfully empty a bunch of birthday cards in to a pile.. 😂

(having read the article, and knowing cops, I know there were serious amounts of money stolen, this was just the image I got from the headline)

[-] kevin@programming.dev 35 points 5 days ago

My first thought was the same thing. But then I realized that birthday cards go in envelopes. Usually they go through USPS, not FedEx.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Do you think the wall behind them has one poorly drawn ‘fundraising goal meter’ with big ticket items on it, like machine gun robot dogs, amwraps, machine gun drones, tanks, next-gen stingray devices, or networked city-wide camera systems so they can spy on their ex-girlfriends; or do you think each officer has their own chart, with smaller, more personal items, like shooting targets of POC and pets, vaguely white supremacist decals for their cars, training sessions on how to manufacture evidence, or discrete GPS tracking, first aid kits, and bruise concealing makeup for their wives?

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

Oof.. Maybe a mixture of both? Like at the ticket "shop" at the arcade, so the robot dog is the super mega prize hanging at the top as the unattainable temptation, but most pigs only collect enough for the minor prizes, and can't figure out that pooling tickets would get them better things..

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 12 points 5 days ago

They probably weigh the birthday cards to see if anything seems worth opening.

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago

True, though I can also see it being a lot more about the taking for them, than it is about the money. Plus, cops aren't known for liking any extra work, or making good decisions..

[-] MethodicalSpark@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Cash is commonly banned by most logistics companies. As it is openly stated that it will not be carried by FedEx, it’s no stretch that the police will consider it contraband.

Source: I work for a competing company that also will not ship cash. Any of our employees will tell you no. Ship cash at your own risk.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

As it is openly stated that it will not be carried by FedEx, it’s no stretch that the police will consider it contraband.

It is a stretch. Enforcing contractual agreements is not the job of the police. And it’s also a stretch to say the police are looking to protect the contractual interests of FedEx.

It’s also strangely inconsistent with FedEx’s anything goes practices, whereby FedEx is known for shipping morally dubious payloads:

  • #sharkFins (illegal in countries that have a shred of respect animal welfare and the environment)
  • hunting trophies
  • slave dolphins

Normally, FedEx could normally claim that they are simply maximizing the bottom line in their duty to their greedy shareholders. But the cash ban is not consistent with that. Unless FedEx believes that anyone who loses an insured pkg would claim the pkg included cash as a way to max out the insurance payout. But in that case, it is not in FedEx’s business interest to enforce the policy -- just to be able to point to the policy when an insurance claimant say cash was lost.

(update) In fact, police are preventing crime prevention by grabbing the cash. This inspired me to propose a new rule.

[-] ninjaphysics@beehaw.org 9 points 4 days ago

Hey, that's "Civil" Forfeiture in 2024.

"We have guns and riot gear. Wtf you gonna do about it?" -- Signed, Bullies with Badges

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Edit: the following only applies to USPS, so it's probably a good idea to only use USPS for mail.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1708

Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein; or

Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein which has been left for collection upon or adjacent to a collection box or other authorized depository of mail matter; or

Whoever buys, receives, or conceals, or unlawfully has in his possession, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein, which has been so stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted, as herein described, knowing the same to have been stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

~~A cop who commits a crime is a criminal. A cop who commits a felony crime is a felon. Arrest them.~~

[-] LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 18 points 5 days ago

FedEx is a private company providing delivery services. I’m not a lawyer but I’m guessing the statute you’re referencing only applies to USPS.

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

Shit, you're right. The only recourse here is a suit against FedEx I think, from anyone who's had money stolen, and it would have to be based in how they present themselves as a mail carrier such that the average consumer thinks their mail is protected when it's not. Risky.

[-] LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 17 points 5 days ago

Since it’s civil asset forfeiture what actually happens is the state/municipality sues to take the money so it has to be fought in court against the state/municipality.

The problem is the state sues the money directly so the suit itself would be something like Indiana vs. $48,000 or Marion County vs. $48,000. This makes it a lot harder and more expensive to recover your money since they are suing an inanimate object, not the owner directly.

Civil asset forfeiture laws need to be scrapped and rewritten because this has been going on in the US for years.

[-] LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 18 points 5 days ago

Ironic, I just watched Rebel Ridge which outlines this exact problem with civil asset forfeiture.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] crimsoncobalt@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago

What are the dogs going to do with all that money?

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 21 points 5 days ago

I’ve never heard of cops being called dogs. Pigs, sure. Anyway, money confiscated in this way usually finances police station frills like high-end coffee machines.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] HappyTimeHarry@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

Most criminals know to use USPS as unlike others a warrant is required to open any mail.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago

Pack your shit up tight, and send it with USPS. They need a reason (real suspicion) to open your package, so don't give them any.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago

Always ship usps

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 8 points 5 days ago

Makes one wonder how many other teams there are. FedEx, UPS, USPS all have multiple hubs. If your own doesn't have a hub, what does it have?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
436 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

633 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS