Speeches & Op-Eds
Taking the Money out of Crime Workshop Remarks
November 8, 2005
Good Morning. On behalf of the United States Embassy in Nassau, welcome to this workshop entitled, “Taking the Money Out of Crime.” I would like to begin by passing along my thanks to Robert Lipman from the United States Department of Justice’s Overseas Prosecutorial Development and Training Office for his work in putting this workshop together and assembling an extraordinary multi-national panel of experts.
This workshop is designed to provide insights and information about an increasingly essential tool in fighting crime: civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture has been successfully used in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Antigua and Barbuda and other Commonwealth countries to seize millions of dollars worth of assets accumulated as a result of criminal activities. This workshop will provide real world examples of civil forfeitures undertaken with legislation currently in use in Commonwealth countries.
While we all know that criminal -- as opposed to civil -- forfeiture is a vital aspect of prosecuting criminal activity, we frequently face the problem that it is not always possible for governments to seize assets in a criminal case. First of all, criminal forfeiture can only be used if the government can prove that a criminal defendant owns the property to be seized. Take the example of a house used for selling illegal drugs: to forfeit this in a criminal case, the owner or owners of the house must be convicted of selling drugs. Prosecutors must then prove that the asset, the house in this case, was derived from or used in the commission of the crime for which the conviction was obtained.
In a civil asset forfeiture case, by contrast, the government need only prove that the house was being used for a criminal purpose to affect the forfeiture. This can be demonstrated with evidence that drugs were sold from within the house, whether by the house’s owner or someone else with access to it.
Civil forfeiture therefore allows governments to directly attach the proceeds and tools of criminal conduct. This means that these assets are no longer available for use in future criminal activities. Furthermore, these assets can provide a means to compensate victims of crime. All of this works together to reduce or eliminate the profit from crime – which is, after all, a criminal’s primary motivation his illegal actions.
Beyond these tangible reasons in favor of civil forfeiture, this procedure can also bring intangible but critical benefits from the psychological message that it can send to the community of law-abiding citizens. When a notorious criminal is stripped of the trappings of what may appear to be an enviable lifestyle, the message is: ‘Crime does not pay.’ Criminals typically spend their spoils on expensive homes, airplanes, electronic goods and other “toys” that we all wish we had the resources to acquire. Taking the criminal’s “toys” away, not only ensures that the criminal enterprise is deprived of those economic resources, it makes clear to young people that the benefits of crime are illusory and temporary at best.
Law enforcement professionals, I am sure, would much prefer that people passing an expensive mansion on Paradise Island would say: “Remember Mr. Big, the drug trafficker? There is the house he used to own -- the government has it now,” rather than: “There’s Mr. Big’s house. What a place, and he still owns it even after being arrested.” Civil forfeiture provides a tool to ensure that the Mr. Big’s of this world do not enjoy the fruits of their criminal actions, even after their arrest and conviction.
It is my hope that by the end of this workshop you will have a better understanding of civil forfeiture and the benefits it can provide your governments in their fight against crime. Thank you for joining us for what I am sure will be a rewarding workshop, and what I hope will in time prove to be a profitable one for your governments.
Thank you.