Talk:USA v. $124,700
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page desperatly needs an explanation of how money can be a defendant
In response to the unsigned comment above, I'm pretty sure the explanation for money as defendant goes like this: Asset forfeiture requires a "preponderance of the evidence", which is a much lower standard than that of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as required in criminal cases. The government can seize assets which it believes to be connected to the illegal drug trade without convicting or even charging the owner of those assets of any crime. Since the owner of the money in this case was never charged with a crime and he isn't suing or being sued by anybody, he can't, strictly speaking, be a party in the case. Therefore, the money is named instead.
I also wanted to point out that the "Background" and "Lawsuit" sections of this entry are taken directly from the opinion itself, word-for-word. I believe that would qualify as plagiarism since it is not acknowledged anywhere, so far as I can tell. GasMask 00:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
