Mr Lee Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 :th_signs083: This may be yet another way for the Philippines to persecute foreigners, are they doing that? Are these people actually guilty? It says suspected of, so it really does not matter at this point, what matters is that this shows that we could end up high and dry, and in the same position, if someone in govt decided to falsely accuse one of us. What do you think about this, since this might be yet one more reason to not keep too much money in the Philippines. This really troubles me about living there full time, or maybe even part time, since they can then charge you, and you would then not have the money to defend yourself. The last sentence makes it look to me that confiscating the money is the real goal behind all this. Once again, having too much money in the Philippines might make us a target IMHO. 07/26/2011Access to funds in three dozens bank accounts under the names of four foreigners suspected of trafficking prohibited drugs in the country have been frozen by the Court of Appeals (CA) for six months.In a five-page resolution, the CA through Associate Justice Jane Aurora Lantion extended from a period of 20 days to six months the effectivity of the freeze order until Nov. 7, 2011 against the accounts of Sally Ang Nina, Tian Gang Shi, Sarah Lee Jessica and Evelyn See Ting. Associate Justices Andres Reyes Jr. and Japar Dimaampao concurrred to the ruling.Link to the complete storyFor purposes of compliance with a Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the CA directed the AMLC to “inform the appellate court whether or not a civil forfeiture case has been filed against respondents within 10 days prior to the expiration of the period of the freeze order.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredNavyGuy Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) While I understand your concern, I don't see that as all that different from the US any more. The US laws are absolutely Draconian. Lee, you, of all people, should know that any law enforcement agency can confiscate any assets...all they have to do is say the suspect it came from drug profits. They don't have to prove that, the victim never has to be charged, and the confiscating agency gets a share of the booty. The burden of proof is on the person whose assets were confiscated, but of course, since they have no assets left - proving thier "innocence" is virtually impossible. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often than it does, and as the economy worsens (perhaps, about August 3rd ?), I expect to see that become a major funding source for many law enforcement agencies.At least, the courts had to get involved in the case here. That actually is [small] step up from the US laws as I understand them. I am open to being educated if I am wrong about the US laws. Edited July 25, 2011 by RetiredNavyGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted July 25, 2011 Author Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) While I understand your concern, I don't see that as all that different from the US any more. The US laws are absolutely Draconian. Lee, you, of all people, should know that any law enforcement agency can confiscate any assets...all they have to do is say the suspect it came from drug profits. They don't have to prove that, the victim never has to be charged, and the confiscating agency gets a share of the booty. The burden of proof is on the person whose assets were confiscated, but of course, since they have no assets left - proving thier "innocence" is virtually impossible. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often than it does, and as the economy worsens (perhaps, about August 3rd ?), I expect to see that become a major funding source for many law enforcement agencies.At least, the courts had to get involved in the case here. That actually is [small] step up from the US laws as I understand them. I am open to being educated if I am wrong about the US laws. I have not seen the law abused in that manner in the US but I am sure it does happen when they know someone who is actually guilty but cannot fully make the charges stick. One thing that I believe is very different in the US verses the Philippines, is that if a persons funds are confiscated in the US, and then have no means to get a lawyer, then the law allows for a public defender to be appointed, in the Philippines I believe without funds, one of us would just rot in jail. Am I wrong? I will look into the laws of the US a little deeper, but as I said, I have never seen confiscation laws/Rico Act used against innocent people. I dread to think what might have happened had they confiscated all the assets of the first couple Karen and Sven who had been charged with killing Ellah Joy? I think we already know the answer to that, they would still most likely be in jail. Now not to be a wise guy, but if anyone thinks the justice system in the Philippines affords the same equal justice as in the US or in many other countries, to foreigners, then they better wake up. JMHO based on years of experience in both places. Edited July 25, 2011 by Kuya Lee spelling repair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollygoodfellow Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 While I understand your concern, I don't see that as all that different from the US any more. The US laws are absolutely Draconian. Lee, you, of all people, should know that any law enforcement agency can confiscate any assets...all they have to do is say the suspect it came from drug profits. They don't have to prove that, the victim never has to be charged, and the confiscating agency gets a share of the booty. The burden of proof is on the person whose assets were confiscated, but of course, since they have no assets left - proving thier "innocence" is virtually impossible. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often than it does, and as the economy worsens (perhaps, about August 3rd ?), I expect to see that become a major funding source for many law enforcement agencies.At least, the courts had to get involved in the case here. That actually is [small] step up from the US laws as I understand them. I am open to being educated if I am wrong about the US laws. I will look into the laws of the US a little deeper, but as I said, I have never seen confiscation laws/Rico Act used against innocent people. I dread to think what might have happened had they confiscated all the assets of the first couple Karen and Sven who had been charged with killing Ellah Joy? I think we already know the answer to that, they would still most likely be in jail. Why would you think they could confiscate the assets of Karen and Steven? if its like Australian law the proceeds of crime or assets bought with the proceeds can be confiscated and they do but the case you are referring to I don't believe would fit in to that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted July 26, 2011 Author Posted July 26, 2011 Why would you think they could confiscate the assets of Karen and Steven? if its like Australian law the proceeds of crime or assets bought with the proceeds can be confiscated and they do but the case you are referring to I don't believe would fit in to that at all. Because if they said the money they had in the bank resulted from child pornography, which is what the police assertions were in regards to why they supposedly had kidnapped Ellah Joy, then assets derived from what is to believed illegal acts, can be frozen. None of us has any idea what evidence they supposedly have on the people in the OP but my guess it is just like the supposed evidence they had on Karen and Sven, which was some of the supposedly strongest evidence in the Philippines, eye witnesses (who BTW probably need glasses or were paid or coerced to say what they said), so thus guilty until proven innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts