I am very confused by this.
First on Amazons claim: the key parts of the screenshots she herself provided are blacked out. So they show nothing?! Someone has specifically removed only the parts relevant to her claim.
Second, on the Civil Forfeiture: They have gotten most but not all of the cash back. If the DOJ actually admit there is no case why not insist on all of it (and lawyers fees and interest etc)? And also, the DOJ are VERY clear the only reason they didn't fight the return of the money is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it. The DOJ having an open case AND secret sources seems like the opposite of proof you're innocent.
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)? I don't know why Op talks about it like it is evidence of conspiracy...
I don't know much about this case. Civil Forfeiture seems like bullshit to me. It's confusing to me how long US cases seem to take (both before and during court proceedings, ditto for the Jan 6th prosecutions that are only just getting going). But these claims seem suspicious as hell...
Please do correct me if I am missing some key point here?
First on Amazons claim: the key parts of the screenshots she herself provided are blacked out. So they show nothing?! Someone has specifically removed only the parts relevant to her claim.
Second, on the Civil Forfeiture: They have gotten most but not all of the cash back. If the DOJ actually admit there is no case why not insist on all of it (and lawyers fees and interest etc)? And also, the DOJ are VERY clear the only reason they didn't fight the return of the money is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it. The DOJ having an open case AND secret sources seems like the opposite of proof you're innocent.
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)? I don't know why Op talks about it like it is evidence of conspiracy...
I don't know much about this case. Civil Forfeiture seems like bullshit to me. It's confusing to me how long US cases seem to take (both before and during court proceedings, ditto for the Jan 6th prosecutions that are only just getting going). But these claims seem suspicious as hell...
Please do correct me if I am missing some key point here?