1
0

Failing world banks prepare to steal your savings


 invite response                
2014 Jun 23, 7:35am   21,254 views  49 comments

by turtledove   ➕follow (5)   💰tip   ignore  

Just like in 2007, the predictable upcoming financial crash will arrive suddenly overnight and the new day's world economy will be in chaos. At the starting gun of this “run on the banks,” you had better be pretty quick.

Your bank has almost zero cash.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/23/368315/failing-world-banks-to-steal-your-savings/

Comments 1 - 40 of 49       Last »     Search these comments

1   David9   2014 Jun 23, 8:33am  

Thank you for posting this.

I am glad no one is calling you names!

Of course, the main stream media is not writing this.
It does affect consumer views.

Has there been a previous fall out that did not happen overnight?

Am I taking this as Southern Gospel? No.

But I appreciate the opportunity to read it.

Thanks again.

2   Strategist   2014 Jun 23, 8:51am  

Call it Crazy says

turtledove says

Your bank has almost zero cash.

The people are just like the banks, they have almost zero cash too...

http://patrick.net/?p=1244622

The banks are gonna be mighty disappointed when they realize there's not much to steal.
They can always rob each other.

3   Robert Sproul   2014 Jun 23, 9:03am  

Call it Crazy says

Unless they go after the 401k's or IRA's....

Of course they will.

4   dublin hillz   2014 Jun 23, 9:05am  

Perhaps we need to sacrifice a millenial to the sun god on the daily basis so that the appetite will be filled and all of us shall be spared the financial pestilence and mayhem.

5   Bubbabeefcake   2014 Jun 23, 9:21am  

I'm as mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore

http://youtu.be/rGIY5Vyj4YM

6   corntrollio   2014 Jun 23, 9:24am  

Call it Crazy says

Unless they go after the 401k's or IRA's....

Yeah, make sure you stuff your money in your mattress. After you do that, send me your address via email.

7   Ceffer   2014 Jun 23, 9:49am  

The Boomers can just go out and rape a few MillXYers to make up the difference.

8   New Renter   2014 Jun 23, 10:23am  

Ceffer says

The Boomers can just go out and rape a few MillXYers to make up the difference.

Rape them?

I'd think they'd pimp them out.

There's goood money in pimpin'

9   corntrollio   2014 Jun 23, 10:59am  

Call it Crazy says

It's a good thing pensions or retirement accounts have never been taken in the past...

European nations begin seizing private pensions

[content removed]
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2011/0102/European-nations-begin-seizing-private-pensions

This what happens when you read shitty blogs. Note that the link you sent is not a normal editorial article from the Christian Science Monitor.

Those mandatory "private" pensions were private in name only because what it meant was that the money was privately managed instead of managed by the government. These "private" pensions were not the same as 401ks or IRAs because the contributions were not elective -- you are forced to make these contributions.

The way I understand it worked in Hungary from 1998 to 2010 was as follows:
18% of your income via employer contribution goes to the government pension fund (first pillar)
1.5% of your income (mandatory contribution) goes to the government pension fund (also first pillar)
7% of your income (mandatory contribution) goes to your privately-managed funds -- second pillar, this is called MPF, or Mandatory Pension Fund

There is also a third pillar called VPF or voluntary pension fund that can be defined benefit or defined contribution funds created by employers, but this is not part of the mandatory system.

Only 50% of your MPF funds were allowed to be in equities (and only 60% of VPF is allowed in equities). As a result, 70% of your pension comes from the government and 30% comes from MPF. In 2010, Orban pulled these second pillar MPF accounts back into the main system so that 100% of your normal pension comes from the government.

Similarly, in Poland, they have the main government-run pension system ZUS (first pillar), which runs by payroll deductions. ZUS gets 9.75% from the employer and 9.75% from the employee. ZUS was transferring 7.3% money into privately-managed funds, which are called OFE (second pillar). There is also a third pillar that's called PPE where employers and employees can make voluntary contributions.

Tusk pulled the bond holdings (about 50%) within the OFE mandatory privately-managed funds back into the government-run ZUS system and reduced the transfer to 2.3%. Again, this was a mandatory system, not like a 401(k) or IRA. Only 40-50% of the OFE was allowed to be in equities.

The analog in the US would be if the government said:
"We are going to take your 12.4% Social Security contribution, of which 6.2% comes from your employer and 6.2% comes from the employee, and allow you to put half of that into privately-managed accounts. Then, half of your Social Security earnings would come from the half that we manage, and the other half would come from the part that you manage. In your privately-managed accounts, you are limited to no more than 50% in equities." Then, they change their mind 10-15 years later and pulled all the privately-managed funds back into the main Social Security system.

Imagine if Bush II had gotten his way to "privatize" Social Security (by diverting the mandatory payroll taxes to privately-managed accounts with restrictions on equity purchases and fees), and then Obama changed it back to the old way. That's basically what happened.

Again, the distinction is that these are privately *managed* pensions in that you can choose to buy equities and things like that, but the contributions were mandatory elements of the pension plan. In addition, the amount of equities you can buy is capped (and also the amount invested in any one equity is capped: http://www.oecd.org/finance/private-pensions/2401405.pdf). Furthermore, a private fund manager manages the funds (and the expense ratios are capped, I believe), rather than the government. However, these are mandatory pension funds nonetheless -- you are not electing to make them, as you would a 401(k) or IRA.

The comparisons to 401(k)s and IRAs simply do not work because they are not mandatory contributions. Most of those alarmist blog posts and op-eds are from people who don't understand how mandatory "private" pension accounts work in those countries.

The people who are more pissed about the loss of mandatory privately-managed accounts are private fund managers (who now don't have mandatory pension plan funds as part of their AUM) and the local stock market (which doesn't have mandatory pension plan money invested into it).

Here are some links if you are interested:
http://www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk/content/country-profiles/hungary/115
http://www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk/content/country-profiles/poland/81

11   smaulgld   2014 Jun 23, 11:39am  

Robert Sproul says

Call it Crazy says

Unless they go after the 401k's or IRA's....

Of course they will.

That is where the real money is and they have a legal "right" to it as they have "given" you the tax advantages.
I think since the Fed is not buying Treasuries any more and someone needs to buy them and get paid next to no interest, they will push for retirement plans to have treasury bonds in them.

AND the Fed is talking about putting exit fees on bond funds to keep them invested in bonds

http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB50001424053111903927604579628353649352222
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101764134
For all the big government types- its for your own good and the good of all

12   Strategist   2014 Jun 23, 11:48am  

Robert Sproul says

Call it Crazy says

Unless they go after the 401k's or IRA's....

Of course they will.

They keep trying to get my 401K's and investments. When I look at their costs they are a bloody rip off.

13   corntrollio   2014 Jun 24, 5:40am  

Strategist says

They keep trying to get my 401K's and investments. When I look at their costs they are a bloody rip off.

You should lobby your company for a better plan. There are plenty of low-cost providers. Bogleheads has a lot of detail on this.

In any case, it sounds like some of you (not talking about you, Strategist) don't really understand how 401(k)s and IRAs are different from what happened in Hungary and Poland:

corntrollio says

The comparisons to 401(k)s and IRAs simply do not work because they are not mandatory contributions. Most of those alarmist blog posts and op-eds are from people who don't understand how mandatory "private" pension accounts work in those countries.

14   turtledove   2014 Jun 24, 7:30am  

But Corntrollio, don't you find it a bit unsettling that the Hungarian and Polish governments want control of that money in response to the economic climate? What do you think their reasons are? Is it because they believe they can manage it better than private funds? Or is it possible that they just need access to more funds.... for possible diversion to other areas of the economy?

15   Strategist   2014 Jun 24, 8:12am  

turtledove says

But Corntrollio, don't you find it a bit unsettling that the Hungarian and Polish governments want control of that money in response to the economic climate? What do you think their reasons are? Is it because they believe they can manage it better than private funds? Or is it possible that they just need access to more funds.... for possible diversion to other areas of the economy?

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

16   Strategist   2014 Jun 24, 8:21am  

corntrollio says

Strategist says

They keep trying to get my 401K's and investments. When I look at their costs they are a bloody rip off.

You should lobby your company for a better plan. There are plenty of low-cost providers. Bogleheads has a lot of detail on this.

In any case, it sounds like some of you (not talking about you, Strategist) don't really understand how 401(k)s and IRAs are different from what happened in Hungary and Poland:

corntrollio says

The comparisons to 401(k)s and IRAs simply do not work because they are not mandatory contributions. Most of those alarmist blog posts and op-eds are from people who don't understand how mandatory "private" pension accounts work in those countries.

I have been self employed for for most of my working life. I have IRA's and SEP IRA's with fidelity. My bank keeps trying to get me to move the accounts to them. My wife works for a major corporation where the 401k management fees are very reasonable. Hers is entirely in the S&P index where the fees are very minuscule.
I'll check out Bogleheads...thx for the tip.

17   corntrollio   2014 Jun 24, 8:55am  

turtledove says

But Corntrollio, don't you find it a bit unsettling that the Hungarian and Polish governments want control of that money in response to the economic climate? What do you think their reasons are? Is it because they believe they can manage it better than private funds? Or is it possible that they just need access to more funds.... for possible diversion to other areas of the economy?

Well, you have to think about the system as a whole. The portion they are "seizing" is effectively the portion of our Social Security system that Bush wanted to "privatize" -- in this case, privatize meaning that the contributions are mandatory, but you can manage the investments yourself through 3rd party custodian who makes certain fund offerings. Wall Street was jizzing its pants like a 15-year old over such a possibility, and so were similar companies in Poland and Hungary when these MPF/OFE systems came about.

It seems that they are quite transparently pulling this back into the main budget, but they are also effectively taking on the pension obligations now instead of having them be based on how your investments did. Note that government regulations on MPF/OFE already regulated how much risk you were allowed to take (i.e. the equity caps). I don't think anyone is truly that much worse off here, and the Polish and Hungarian governments aren't even arbitrarily doing the equivalent of changing Social Security formulas, as Congress has done before.

We don't know exactly how the MPF/OFE funds were doing overall, so it's hard to say if the Polish government can do better or not. For OFE, they only seized the bond portion, and it's likely the Polish government can provide something similar. For MPF, that might not be the case, but maybe given the risk caps, there's a not all that much difference -- I don't know the Polish or Hungarian equities market very well.

Call it Crazy says

Deposits of more than 100,000 euros ($128,000) at the Bank of Cyprus will lose 37.5 percent in money that will be converted into bank shares, according to a central bank statement. In a second raid on these accounts, depositors also could lose up to 22.5 percent more, depending on what experts determine is needed to prop up the bank's reserves. The experts will have 90 days to figure that out.

This is different. This is about bank insurance. If you have more than $250K in a single FDIC/NCUA account in the US, you also face this risk. If you plan your finances accordingly, this is not an issue.

18   corntrollio   2014 Jun 24, 9:05am  

Strategist says

I have been self employed for for most of my working life. I have IRA's and SEP IRA's with fidelity. My bank keeps trying to get me to move the accounts to them. My wife works for a major corporation where the 401k management fees are very reasonable. Hers is entirely in the S&P index where the fees are very minuscule.

I'll check out Bogleheads...thx for the tip.

Fidelity's plans are not bad -- Schwab, Fidelity, and to some extent TD Ameritrade and ETrade are all trying to compete for customers with Vanguard. If you are investing in indexes, whether through Fidelity's low-cost mutual funds or their low-cost ETFs (that have no commissions), you are probably doing just fine in terms of managing costs. Not sure who your bank is, but it's probably not worth moving from Fidelity to them, no matter who they are -- usually you'll have higher expense ratios and crappier fund choices.

Bogleheads (and certain other resources which I can point you to if you are interested) would have a lot of info on various brokerages you can use for retirement accounts and other tips on managing your funds generally. Vanguard has some very low expense ratios (because it's mutually owned by its funds, so there's no incentive to raise expense ratios), but so do some of those low-cost brokerages these days.

I noticed you mentioned IRAs and SEP IRAs. If you are self-employed, often you can put more money into a Solo 401(k) than into a SEP IRA if you make less than $260K in profits and don't have employees other than a spouse. It's quite easy to set up a Solo 401(k) with any of those providers I mentioned above -- the paperwork is largely checkboxes on an template plan doc.

19   bob2356   2014 Jun 24, 12:33pm  

Strategist says

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

20   smaulgld   2014 Jun 24, 12:38pm  

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

I predicted this a year ago- we become the buyer of last resort.
http://smaulgld.com/mandatory-retirement-accounts/

21   FortWayne   2014 Jun 24, 1:30pm  

Feel good article of the day.

22   turtledove   2014 Jun 24, 2:20pm  

Is anyone else concerned about the super-priority status Dodd Frank gave derivatives? How can a person's deposits be subordinate to debts over which they have no control? Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

23   bob2356   2014 Jun 24, 9:11pm  

turtledove says

Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

Campaign contributions.

24   Robert Sproul   2014 Jun 25, 12:30am  

turtledove says

How can a person's deposits be subordinate

It is confusing if you continue to think of it as "your" deposit monies.
According to Wikipedia:
"the bank has borrowed $100 from its depositor and has contractually obliged itself to repay the customer according to the terms of the agreement. To offset this deposit liability, THE BANK NOW OWNS THE FUNDS DEPOSITED and the bank shows those funds as an asset of the bank."
This distinction also leaves room for all sorts of shenanigans.
YOU in general are subordinate.

25   Strategist   2014 Jun 25, 12:39am  

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

That is probably happening now with many mutual funds investing partly in t-bills, especially for seniors who are already retired and have no tolerance for any risk.

26   Strategist   2014 Jun 25, 12:44am  

turtledove says

Is anyone else concerned about the super-priority status Dodd Frank gave derivatives? How can a person's deposits be subordinate to debts over which they have no control? Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

The first $250,000 is FDIC insured.
As for debts, my understanding is salaries get a priority, followed by secured loans.

27   Strategist   2014 Jun 25, 2:01am  

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

The first $250,000 is FDIC insured.

Have you taken a look at that the FDIC's balance sheet looks like and how much they insure? Do you really think you'll get all of your $250K back when your bank goes under?

Don't you trust your own government?

28   corntrollio   2014 Jun 25, 6:27am  

bob2356 says

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

That's a nice conspiracy theory and all, but please explain the mechanism by which this could happen and please be specific and make sure you use the words "due process" somewhere.

turtledove says

Is anyone else concerned about the super-priority status Dodd Frank gave derivatives? How can a person's deposits be subordinate to debts over which they have no control? Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

That's actually not accurate. The Bankruptcy Code has given superpriority to derivatives for a long long time. Dodd-Frank did not alter this. I agree that the principle doesn't really make sense.

I believe BofA, Citi, Chase, and Goldman hold more than 90% of all derivatives. In any case, I've moved any money I had in TBTF institutions to credit unions and other places that don't engage in certain behaviors. I encourage you to vote with your wallet. Here is a list of the top 25 commercial banks and their derivatives behavior:

Strategist says

That is probably happening now with many mutual funds investing partly in t-bills, especially for seniors who are already retired and have no tolerance for any risk.

Mutual funds generally meet their mission statement. If their mission statement says they can do this, then they can do it, but if they are doing this without your knowing about it, it's probably a crappy mutual fund you shouldn't be in.

29   Strategist   2014 Jun 25, 9:06am  

corntrollio says

They're just going to take the money? If that actually happens, I'm pretty sure you will have bigger problems than your IRA being taken from you.

The money would already be worthless at that point, and the economy would have gone to hell. If they want money they can just print it.
The worst they can do is to tax your savings. They could also have a sales tax, so when you spend it, it gets taxed again. That is as good as stealing it. :(
Foreigners trust the USA more than any other country because they have trust in our justice system. They know their money is safe in this country.

30   Robert Sproul   2014 Jun 25, 12:24pm  

Yeah, well, they have contravened our constitution and hundreds of years of rights-of-man tradition and "legalized" Indefinite Military Detention of American citizens without due process.
I don't think they will have to much "legal" trouble if they decide they want to take your fucking money.

31   Strategist   2014 Jun 25, 12:50pm  

Robert Sproul says

Yeah, well, they have contravened our constitution and hundreds of years of rights-of-man tradition and "legalized" Indefinite Military Detention of American citizens without due process.

I don't think they will have to much "legal" trouble if they decide they want to take your fucking money.

Like what you said. Completely, 100% disagree, but i liked it.

32   elliemae   2014 Jun 25, 1:06pm  

About PressTV (owner of the attached article):

"Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis."

Well, if they write it on the interwebs, it must be true.

33   bob2356   2014 Jun 25, 2:01pm  

corntrollio says

You still haven't described the actual mechanism.

They're just going to take the money? If that actually happens, I'm pretty sure you will have bigger problems than your IRA being taken from you.

Reading comprehension problems? I never said anything of the kind, I said

bob2356 says

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

You even quoted it. Then you come and paraphrase a slightly different version back to me as something more realistic. Gee thanks.

Describe to me an actual mechanism that will prevent congress from doing just that when, not if but when, the debt catches up.

Strategist says

Foreigners trust the USA more than any other country because they have trust in our justice system. They know their money is safe in this country.

Really? I wonder why all that money pours into Switzerland (african dictators bank jurisdiction of choice, there is probably more money from africa in Switzerland than there is money in africa), Singapore, Cayman Islands, Dubai, etc., etc..

That would be the justice system that can freeze or seize your assets, no questions asked, no charges filed, no judgement, no indictment, no evidence nothing? Read policing for a profit sometime, it's easily available on line. Over 80% of people who had their assets seized NEVER were charged with a crime. Did they get anything back. Nope. This doesn't even get into political sanctions the US government is so fond of. Then there doesn't even have to be the charade of suspicion of a crime. Here is the newest Obama trick. http://www.infowars.com/new-executive-order-obama-has-just-given-himself-the-authority-to-seize-your-assets/ A little over the top even for infowars but the basics are correct.

The US has dropped from 34% of worldwide foreign direct investment in 2000 to 17% in 2014. A 50% drop is not exactly a ringing endorsement by any measure I can come up with.

Ironically the real money flowing into the US from overseas is illegal. If you aren't a US citizen the US is a great place for money laundering or tax evasion. The general agreement among international bankers is 80-90% of the international money laundering and tax evasion is done in the US by US banks.

Want to open a bank account in Panama or pretty much anywhere else you would actually want to bank overseas? Good luck. You need stacks of paperwork documenting every aspect of where the money came from, where it will be going, along with reference letters that will be checked, letter of good standing from your bank along with several years of banking history, a worldcheck screening, not only for yourself but if it's a corporate account then all of this for all corporate officers. Then wait 3-5 weeks while it is all verified. Been there, done that.

Want to open a bank account in the US if you are a foreign national? Have 2 forms of ID and 15 minutes you will be on your way, No questions asked. What's the catch? Without a ss # the bank gets to keep all the interest. Nice deal, that certainly encourages banks to get to know their foreign depositors. I very much doubt a suspicious activity report has ever been made on a foreign account holder. You can set up by email. You can do it as a corporation. You can do it as a trust.

But wait, there's more. Want to incorporate an anonymous shell company to stash all your rubles,pesos,rimbi earned through hard work and frugal living? Easy peasy in the US. Pick a state where the corporate officers can be hidden, then have at it. What if your home government wants information? Yea right. The good luck with that. The US wants detailed information from every government around the world on US citizens money abroad, but doesn't reciprocate at all. If you aren't a major arms dealer without cia sanction or a political figure that pisses off the state department you are safe as in your mothers arms.

34   corntrollio   2014 Jun 26, 5:13am  

bob2356 says

You even quoted it. Then you come and paraphrase a slightly different version back to me as something more realistic. Gee thanks.

Except that you were lazy and didn't describe the full mechanism.

bob2356 says

I never said anything of the kind

I don't know what "Pretty much every single time in history a country runs out of money through taxation it simply grabs the citizens funds" means if it doesn't mean just confiscating them. You still keep your money even if the tax scenario changes. Anyone who currently uses a Roth account should be aware of the risk that tax law changes -- people who know about taxation have been talking about this for ages.

bob2356 says

Describe to me an actual mechanism that will prevent congress from doing just that when, not if but when, the debt catches up.

It's called the way our government is structured. This is not confiscation in any way shape or form because Congress has the ability to change taxation. Again, if you think confiscation is really a real risk, you should put your money where your mouth is. The reality is that there would be many many more bigger problems before any real confiscation could ever happen in this country.

bob2356 says

Want to open a bank account in the US if you are a foreign national? Have 2 forms of ID and 15 minutes you will be on your way, No questions asked.

This is bullshit. My buddy is a dual citizen living abroad, EU and USA, and he had a shitload of trouble trying to open a US account. The new regs post-9/11 have made this harder and harder. My friends in the US trying to open foreign accounts have had similar roadblocks, of course.

bob2356 says

Then there doesn't even have to be the charade of suspicion of a crime. Here is the newest Obama trick. http://www.infowars.com/new-executive-order-obama-has-just-given-himself-the-authority-to-seize-your-assets/ A little over the top even for infowars but the basics are correct.

Except that there are definitely standards for determining what "material support" means, due to terrorism cases having a similar standard -- this is not an "Obama trick" because similar laws have been on the books for a while. There are also executive orders that are similar for Iran and Syria. In any case, Congress can always overturn those EOs and hasn't chosen to do so.

35   Strategist   2014 Jun 26, 6:56am  

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Foreigners trust the USA more than any other country because they have trust in our justice system. They know their money is safe in this country.

Really? I wonder why all that money pours into Switzerland (african dictators bank jurisdiction of choice, there is probably more money from africa in Switzerland than there is money in africa), Singapore, Cayman Islands, Dubai, etc., etc..

Those who put their money in Swiss banks do so from a need for privacy. The anonymity afforded by Swiss banks is perfect for dictators, corrupt politicians, drug dealers and the rich who have not paid taxes.
From what I understand that is starting to change, as it should.
But yes, Switzerland is the most secure. If your money is legal, USA would be the best as it offers a diverse range of investments along with a justice system that will protect your assets. Western Europe is good too.

bob2356 says

The US has dropped from 34% of worldwide foreign direct investment in 2000 to 17% in 2014. A 50% drop is not exactly a ringing endorsement by any measure I can come up with.

It will continue to drop as developing countries in Asia, South America and Eastern Europe need a lot of capital for development, and are willing to offer excellent returns to foreign investors.

36   bob2356   2014 Jun 26, 8:45am  

Strategist says

along with a justice system that will protect your assets.

From everything except the justice system. Many people have lost their money to the justice system without be charged or convicted of anything. What if your legal money rental property has a tenent grow a couple pot plants in the cellar and the local cops seize your house and sell it. Don't tell me it can't happen, examples of abuses abound. There are police forces that count on something like 25% of their budget from confiscations. Again, go read policing for profit if you think you money is safe. That's just at the police level. Get into the national security level and it's a lot worse.

Strategist says

It will continue to drop as developing countries in Asia, South America and Eastern Europe need a lot of capital for development, and are willing to offer excellent returns to foreign investors

Excellent, thanks for confirming what I said.

37   Strategist   2014 Jun 26, 8:53am  

bob2356 says

Strategist says

along with a justice system that will protect your assets.

From everything except the justice system. Many people have lost their money to the justice system without be charged or convicted of anything. What if your legal money rental property has a tenent grow a couple pot plants in the cellar and the local cops seize your house and sell it. Don't tell me it can't happen, examples of abuses abound. There are police forces that count on something like 25% of their budget from confiscations. Again, go read policing for profit if you think you money is safe. That's just at the police level. Get into the national security level and it's a lot worse.

That would be scary, but I have never hear of that happening in So. Cal.
Any examples?
I have heard of them confiscating cars, but a landlords property?

38   Robert Sproul   2014 Jun 26, 9:13am  

Strategist says

but a landlords property?

One notorious case (happily resolved in favor of the landlord, after 100s of thousands in defense costs):
http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure
Also:
"homes in Philadelphia are routinely seized for unproved minor drug crimes, often involving children or grandchildren who don’t own the home."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

39   bob2356   2014 Jun 26, 9:23am  

Robert Sproul says

One notorious case (happily resolved in favor of the landlord, after 100s of thousands in defense costs):

http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure

Did you catch the part where the tweksbury police get 80% of the proceeds.

40   bob2356   2014 Jun 26, 9:28am  

Strategist says

I have heard of them confiscating cars, but a landlords property?

There have been cases of people having cash to buy a car confiscated. http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens

at least this guy eventually got his cash back after the cops lied through their teeth. most people don't.

google it, there are plenty of cases to choose from.

Comments 1 - 40 of 49       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions