Re: UK cops think law allows them to seize cash with no basis

On May 8, 2025 at 12:22:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Truly disturbing video; cops are simply gaslighting innocent man to
seize hs cash.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkGFmbPkG5Q

It's a pity the UK cops aren't this enthusiastic with the Pakistani grooming
gangs that have sexually assaulted hundreds of kids with impunity while the
cops looked the other way even after it was reported to them.

No time for that, but plenty of time to steal money from average joes by
making up fake money laundering 'suspicions' and kicking in doors of people's
homes over mean Twitter posts.

Reminds me of this story I posted back in 2018:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180125/10243639084/dutch-approach-to-
asset-forfeiture-will-literally-take-clothes-off-pedestrians-backs.shtml

We've long complained about civil asset forfeiture in the United States. Law
enforcement agencies, thanks to a series of perverse incentives, have grown to
love taking people's property (usually cash) without charging them for crimes.
The excuse is that lifting a few thousand dollars from some random person
somehow chips away at drug cartels located overseas.

It would seem to be more crippling if criminal charges were pursued and
suspects interrogated, jailed, and flipped. But law enforcement has no time
for that, not when a pile of cash is only a few pieces of paperwork away from
changing ownership.

However, they're taking asset forfeiture to a whole new level over in the
Netherlands. Dutch cops will now be taking the clothes off people's back if
they "suspect" the clothing might be out of the spending range of the person
wearing it.

    Police in the Dutch city of Rotterdam have launched a new
    pilot programme which will see them confiscating expensive
    clothing and jewelry from young people if they look too
    poor to own them.

    Officers say the scheme will see them target younger men in
    designer clothes they seem unlikely to be able to afford
    legally-- if it is not clear how the person paid for it, it
    will be confiscated.

    The idea is to deter criminality by sending a signal that
    the men will not be able to hang on to their ill-gotten gains.

The police say they'll be able to make quick determinations about the legality
of... um... clothing by accosting well-dressed youngsters. Presumably, no one
will be carrying receipts. Because who actually carries the receipts for their
own clothes around with them forever? The police have used the term "undress"
but swear they'll be focused on items that won't leave their former owners in
a state of undress (watches are mentioned). Then again, the police also say
they'll be packing clothes to hand out to people they've disrobed for dressing
too richly, so it's obvious it won't just be watches being watched.

What's propelling this new spin on asset forfeiture? Apparently, it's some
form of disrespect Dutch police want to shut down.

    Police Chief said the young men targeted often have no income
    and are already in debt from fines for previous convictions
    but are wearing expensive clothing and accessories, which
    mocks the police's law enforcement efforts.

    This "undermines the rule of law" and sends "a completely
    false signal to local residents", he explained.

The law already gives Dutch police permission to forfeit items procured with
criminal funds. Over the last decade, the police have expanded these programs
to go far beyond perceived kingpins to reach street hassle levels. Dutch law
enforcement have been performing "Rolex checks" on young people for three
years now, but the recent expansion into Rotterdam (it originated in
Amsterdam), coupled with inflammatory "undress them on the street" comments
from the Rotterdam police chief, has resulted in a new wave of backlash.

The police refuse to say how they'll determine rightful ownership of
clothing/watches/jewelry they wish to seize. Obviously, the specifics would
"let criminals know what receipts to carry" (and we can't have them out there
able to actually prove that they own something legitimately, now can we), but
also suggests they're not entirely sure how they're going to carry this out
either. Of course, the method matters less to the police. They don't have to
prove anything. All they have to find is a lack of proof of legitimate
ownership. The burden is completely upon those walking around wearing items
cops subjectively feel they can't afford. Given the way this deck is stacked,
citizens may as well just hand over expensive items the moment an officer
approaches them. Why go through all the extra hassle if it's not going to
change anything?

The police chief has responded to the backlash by blaming the media and the
citizens for "rushing ahead" without knowing all the facts. This is a typical
response, one that should be greeted with the obvious point that most of the
facts came directly from from the police chief, i.e., the threat to "undress"
people in public to "rebuild respect for the rule of law". Those facts are
ugly and indisputable. And they're all attributable to Rotterdam Police Chief
Frank Depauuw. He can't blame an extremely awful forfeiture program on all the
people who won't be actively participating in it