Supreme Court Rules Assets Unrelated to Crimes Cannot Be Frozen

[Disir]

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court Wednesday ruled prosecutors can’t freeze assets someone needs to hire a lawyer unless the funds are linked to the alleged crime, disabling a tool authorities had used against suspects in bank and health-care fraud cases.

The 5-3 decision found the Constitution’s right to counsel trumped the government’s interest in preserving funds for restitution and penalties should prosecutors obtain a conviction.

Federal law authorizes courts to freeze assets linked to an alleged crime or “property of an equivalent value.” Writing for a four-justice plurality, Justice Stephen Breyer said, in essence, that was a false equivalence.

“The relevant difference consists of the fact that the property here is untainted, i.e., it belongs to the defendant, pure and simple,” he wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. “It is the difference between what is yours and what is mine.”

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the result, but wrote separately to say he thinks the right to choose legal counsel shouldn’t be balanced at all against the government’s interest in preserving funds, as the four justices in the plurality had done.

The case came from Miami, where federal prosecutors accused Sila Luis, who ran a business providing care to homebound patients, of defrauding Medicare of $45 million over a six-year period in a scheme involving kickbacks and bribes of patient recruiters and beneficiaries, as well as false claims for medical procedures.

Ms. Luis has denied the charges.
Supreme Court Rules Assets Unrelated to Crimes Cannot Be Frozen

Bam. Just like that.

 

[PredFan]

It's a correct decision. I'm kind of surprised it wasn't unanimous.

 

[WorldWatcher]

From the article:

“The true winners today are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted,” Justice Kennedy wrote in one of the dissents, which was joined by Justice Alito. He noted wrongdoers can open shell companies, open bank accounts under other people’s names and take other steps “to disguise the origin of their funds.”​

So now what needs to happen is the Congress need to go back and readdress the law to make it compliant with the decision:

1. Assets can be frozen, however...

2. A neutral executor/administrator of the funds needs to appointed by the court that allows the for the administration of the assets for purposes of legal defense.


Through the actions of #2, their right to counsel is not inhibited. This person is charged with $45 million dollars in fraud yet the government froze only $2 million in assets. The amount frozen is only about 4.5% of the amount defrauded from the government so I don't see how any of it is really "untainted".

(Just going by the linked article.)

>>>>

 

[Blackrook]

They should never have been allowed to freeze assets in the first place. Freezing assets prior to a legal determination of guilt is seizing property without due process.