Man will get his $107K(+) taken by Feds against policy.
Every single IRS agent who was involved in this should get their pay docked and/or THEIR assets seized until all legal fees (and interest) is paid to Mr. McLellan.
Not the IRS as such, that (ultimately) is You and I. But rather, the agents who seized the money with no proof of wrongdoing.
Investigate? Yes, Absolutely.
But to seize the money before there was evidence of a crime being committed, that is on the agents and their superiors....They should pay the legal fees and any interest owed Mr. McLellan. Not the taxpayers.
Might make 'em a bit more careful next time they exercise their not inconsiderable power against the citizens that pay their salary.
7 comments:
They liked the easy money... Few had the money to fight after ALL their money was taken... sigh
I tend to suspect that there's more to this story. Who said that there was "no proof of wrongdoing"? His attorney? Obviously there was something going on that brought him to the attention of the feds. Money released doesn't mean that the guy wasn't doing anything wrong. It just means that they couldn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt with what they had. That kind of cash suggests that he probably was laundering for some illicit enterprise or another, especially since he couldn't simply show where it came from, which he would have had the chance to do before the seizure took place. I'l save my sympathy for someone else, and put five bucks on the table that says that they'll be seizing his assets again once they build a better case, and if he keeps handling large amounts of cash with no records, they'll build that case.
This sort of thing doesn't happen to the average person for a reason, but it happened to this guy. Likely not a coincidence.
You should read better, Murph.
Even the IRS doesn't say he did something wrong, merely that his deposits (and the patterns of them) were suspicious.
The theft of his money was against the new IRS policy, yet they took it anyway.
THis time yer wrong. No illegal dealings, just overeager IRS agents.
Next time bother to read the article.
I did read the article. As I stated, we only got the version of events peddled by his attorney. We did not get the government's side of this so neither you nor I know what caused them to focus on this guy initially nor do we know the particulars behind his massive cash infusions into his accounts. Do you know something that the rest of us don't?
And yeah, his cash deposits and efforts that he took to avoid reporting requirements do suggest that he was doing something shady and trying to conceal it. Like I said originally, there's clearly more to this story but we don't know what that is. Obviously some of us are content to just have half the story or less to use as a springboard to outrage though.
So lesse here:
They took his money against policy, with NO evidence of wrongdoing, only a suspicion based on bank deposits. From a cash type business.
When he protested, and asked for proof of wrongdoing, he was offered half, and told to shut up.
When he sued for return of his money, or proof of a crime, they gave it back.
Have you ever considered that your knee jerk reaction to defend the government (composed of people, some of whom are overeager in their job, some of whom (by no means all) who abuse their power)) destroys your credibility? What would it take, a Federal official being hung for misuse of power?
If they ahd a case, they'd have kept the oney, Of that I have no doubt. Since they didn't. and could prove nothing, then the agents should pay the legal fees.
There are a lot of cases where the Feds do "asset forfeiture" first, then try to make a case. Why not? They get kudos for collecting money, and there are no reperucussions for them.
We don't know what evidence they had or did not have. They didn't say. The attorney for this guy saying that had nothing isn't exactly convincing--he gets paid to say stuff like that.
And I can tell you that lots of criminal cases are dismissed every day because while they are based on proof that the suspect did in fact commit the crime, something comes up amiss in the case, either a witness disappears or there's a defect in the chain of custody--countless things can cause a case that should have gone forward to drop. That doesn't mean that the accused was a choirboy. My gut feeling based on what I see here, is that this guy was dirty. But I can't prove it based on the offered facts any more than you can prove that he wasn't, try as you might.
Hopefully the financial bite in the ass and the increased scrutiny on this guy from now on convinces him to clean up his act.
Oh, and I don't have a "knee jerk" reaction to defend the government. I just apply common sense and my knowledge of how things typically work behind the scenes as opposed to going off the spun stories in the media which usually consist of just one side's version of events. You might do well to learn to take all of these "victim" claims with a grain or two of salt.
Oh, I do take 'em with a grain of salt.... In fact, that is why I waited rather than posting the original story months ago.... But again, unless they had proof that he was dirty, and can CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME that they can convict him on, then they should pay his legal fees to get his money back.
Else they can come and take *your* home, your bank accounts and your class 3 weapons just on "suspicion". You seem to feel that every case is scrutinized and approved before anything happens. I can tell you that often, it isn't scrutinized until after the fact. Then the deed is done and in the case of asset forfeiture, the burden of proof is on the person the property was stolen from, rather than on the official who took the action. In other words, you have to prove that the money or property is legit, not from a crime, rather than the IRS or other agency (and agent)having to prove that is was the result of a crime being committed.
I have no issue with assets from drug dealers being taken from *CONVICTED* drug dealers. I can even support holding those assets in trust once a charge is filed, until the person is either convicted in a court of law, pleads a deal, or is exonerated. But to take, and not even charge the person with a crime is theft. You seem to think that the once the asset is taken that there MUST be (or have been) some crime....perhaps there is. If so, press charges. Get a conviction... But just because a federal agent sSAYS that there is suspicion of a crime (and no actual, you know, proof) is no reason for any citizen to have his property stolen. Again, if someone higher signed off on it, then they should be culpable for damages too. Taking without charges, much less a conviction, is theft. This shouldn't happen without a court order, but some agencies have the power to do so with no oversight. This is wrong. As you so often point out, it should be "up to the courts to decide" if the property should be confiscated or not, not under the power of a federal agent (who is, really, just a policeman who needs convictions to get promoted.....)
This is part of that Fourth Amendment in our Constitution. You are an attorney, you should know it. Look it up if you don't.
The government agents are not always right, nor correct. They have HUGE power, and should be forced to use it carefully and with oversight and approval. Sadly, they often don't.
Again, I believe that this man's damages, (since there was not even charges brought, much less a conviction) should be borne by the agents involved.
Post a Comment