The workaround under which civil asset forfeiture operates is that they're not charging the property owner - or the property holder - with anything. They're bringing a civil case against the property itself (jurisdiction
in rem). The property itself is the defendant. [1, 2]
Which leads to some pretty hilarious case titles:
"United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls"
[edit] "South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats"
[edit] "United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster"
In my opinion this tactic should be illegal.
[edit] As far as I know this only really exists in the US, and in Canadian admiralty law (so, only in the US).
[1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illici...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction
Which leads to some pretty hilarious case titles:
"United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls"
[edit] "South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats"
[edit] "United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster"
In my opinion this tactic should be illegal.
[edit] As far as I know this only really exists in the US, and in Canadian admiralty law (so, only in the US).
[1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illici...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction