I find it shocking that's an allowable outcome, that you can have funds seized for 2 years, sue them to provide proof, and they can just return it back without showing what evidence they had.

> ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it

Too bad in my book. If you start arresting people and seizing property, just giving some of it back isn't good enough, you're going to have to explain yourself.

The DOJ would not return all the money without a legal fight, and that costs money. In this situation, the pragmatic decision to take what they can get cannot be read as evidence of some sort of malfeasance.

> ...why people are tolerant of it.

There is a disturbing tendency to feel that if law enforcement did something, the target was probably up to something, and that's justification enough. This circular reasoning is by no means accepted by everyone, all the time, but widely enough to damp down any groundswell of concern. Due process is a fuzzy, abstract and remote concern for many people.

> The DOJ would not return all the money without a legal fight, and that costs money

Interesting to note, when the IRS makes a procedural mistake, they return improperly seized money, with interest. A very small interest rate, but nonetheless.

This is why I hate settlements: Is she settling because it would cost more than it's worth to get the rest? Or because she knows the DOJ can publicly justify seizing that portion and doesn't want to lose? The whole "American rule" (everyone pays their own fees) just makes this worse. In most places she'd demand what is hers (or be admitting it was not hers) because she would get her fees back. But not the US. That creates a lot of uncertainty and (imho) injustice.

> The whole "American rule" (everyone pays their own fees) just makes this worse.

It would hardly be less worse if the plaintiffs were also likely to be liable for the DOJ's costs in the event that they lost. Few people can be certain of the outcome, no matter how reasonable the case might seem to someone not thoroughly acquainted with the relevant law.

Let's focus on the clear miscarriage of justice here, which is the use of forfeiture in the first place. Note that this issue is separable from the question of whether Carleton Nelson acted as Amazon alleges.

> We cannot be sure whether it was a miscarriage of justice to take the funds until a court hears the case.

So it's OK to impose a sentence presumptively, so long as the prosecution will ultimately prevail? Putting aside the practical difficulties in implementing such a policy, it is just about diametrically opposite to the usual concept of due process.

> I think all of this could be solved by NOT taking 2 years (and counting) to file charges.

Response to the manifest injustice of kangaroo courts is largely responsible for that. Civil forfeiture is a sort of back-door kangaroo court, IMHO (or not even that, as there seems to be not even the appearance of due process.)

This isn't about a sentence. It's about who get's to hold the money until we decide who it actually belongs to. There are downsides whatever we decide...

> This isn't about a sentence.

Civil forfeiture clearly has a punitive effect, and is therefore a de facto sentence, prior to conviction and regardless of whether a conviction is ultimately secured. In this case, "while the government can give us our money back, they can’t give us back the life we had before Amazon’s accusations. We had to leave a city and community we loved, sell our home, leave our daughters’ schools – and move away from the place where I built The Riveter, created 100 jobs, and worked with women starting businesses." For families on the edge of poverty, the consequences can be more devastating still.

Just saying "there are downsides whatever we decide" does not even begin to make a case for civil forfeiture - you would need to expand that ellipsis into an actual argument.

So hold on, you and a police office come to your house and find someone inside stealing your TV and some cash. Does the thief get to keep the TV until he is tried? Can he keep and spend the cash since he's still technically innocent?

That's the problem with just taking the extreme "nothing punitive until there's a guilty verdict" approach.

The least bad answer is somewhere in between.

Personally I think 2 years is too long to wait. But that doesn't mean the right amount of time is zero...

Ah, so in your example, the least bad solution is that the thief should be allowed to keep the stolen TV and cash for a certain amount of time - but for how long? And how long should I be allowed to take your TV simply by alleging you stole it from me? Once again, your reply peters out in ellipsis just when it gets to the tricky part.

This is moot, however, being caught in the act is not a valid analogy for the situation we are discussing here, or generally for civil forfeiture as it is practiced in many parts of the US today. You started this thread saying you were very confused about what's going on here, and introducing hypothetical scenarios that do not resemble it is not going to help.

This is the profit model for civil forfeiture, repeatedly supported by courts: the US government is allowed to seize any assets that they want if they claim it has been involved in illegal activities. They don’t charge the person they’re stealing from so the person can’t defend the claims and prevent the seizure - instead they have to prove their innocence to get their own money back. But that’s expensive, and if the stolen money is less than the recovery costs (which the government has stated are not recoverable) there’s no reason to try.

> It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case.

How would they pay lawyers to prosecute that case? All their money was seized.

> It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case

Because you have to pay your lawyer. And you need at least some of your money back to do that. And you can then sue for actual damages later and get it all back.

In a sane country you are innocent until proven guilty. That fact you exist as a human being is all the evidence you need to prove you are innocent.

If you have to "prove you are innocent" the government is the one violating the law, not you.

Seizing your family's wealth and denying you ability to make a living is punishment for a crime you are not convicted of. That itself alone is beyond violation of justice.

And yes it is "standard" for the government to leverage administrative law to seize assets before a court case. The true purpose of this is to deny a person ability to defend themselves against the government. This is the very definition of evil and tyranny. There is no excuse.

> Third, it seems entirely fair and reasonable for Amazon to have pressured the DOJ to seize/freeze assets. Isn't that very standard in any case of fraud (or whatever this is ultimately prosecuted as)?

Well just wait until somebody decides to seize everything you own with no explanation, no crime, no evidence, and no ability to appeal and see how you "fair and reasonable" it feels after that.