Cash is a wonderful thing. It is flexible, it is reliable, it is portable. It has been used for many years and it will continue to be used. However, there are some problems with it. It can be easily stolen, and it is difficult to trace.
The fact that it is difficult to trace means that it is easy for the state to steal. As in this case
A man has been ordered to forfeit more than £67,000 because he could not prove where the money came from.
Det Con Phil Davies, financial investigator for the division, said: “The onus was on the respondent to provide a lawful origin of the cash found in his possession.
“A legitimate source was not found and the cash was subsequently forfeited. “
Detective Constable Davies: you can take those ideas of yours, wrap them up in barbed wire, and shove them up your arse. The onus is never on the citizen to prove their innocence; it is always on the state to prove their guilt. That is how a fair society works, that is how the legal process is meant to work. This man may, or may not, have been guilty. But that is immaterial. The case could not be made in a fair court, so this fucked up excuse for legislation was used instead.
If you recall, when the Proceeds of Crime Act was enacted, we were told that it would only be used to go after really serious criminals. People who had stolen millions, or cheated on taxes of hundreds of thousands. And back then I said that, even if it was limited to those groups, it would still be wrong.
However, in this instance the full weight of the state – police, customs, benefits agencies, councils, etc – were brought in to claim a whopping £67,000. An amount of money that can’t have covered a third of the costs of the investigation. Doesn’t that makeyou feel happy about the entire state of affairs?