anon_
1hr ago
Normally, "sanctions" refers to laws a state makes which restrict its own citizens, residents, businesses etc. (including foreign-owned businesses operating on its territory) from doing business with the sanctioned country, and increasingly to laws which restrict its banks from financing (even indirectly) transactions to and from the sanctioned country.
There are also secondary sanctions: US entities cannot do business with an entity in a third country that does business with a sanctioned entity.
The ship is "subject to seizure" as a matter of US law, because the US made a law which applies outside its territory. As a matter of international law, it probably isn't.
Well, you'd hope that the US government follows its own laws first.
anon_
21hr ago
Yeah, and those are not "to a criminal standard", they are "to a civil standard".
In many cases, they can be levied administratively (e.g. by members of the executive branch) and it's on the individual fined to bring a challenge in court (at their own expense).
anon_
21hr ago
You guys are confusing civil asset forfeiture, in which the US files a suit in rem and merely fining someone, in which the US files a suit against the defendant.
anon_
21hr ago
unless the fact that they acted illegally can be proven to a criminal standard, the worst that can happen to them is that the proceeds of their acting in a dodgy way can be taken away from them
I don't think I agree with the premise here. In the US, at an administrative/civil level you can be fined. That is not "to a criminal standard" (beyond a reasonable doubt) it's to a much lower civil standard (preponderance of evidence) and has far fewer procedural safeguards. For example, in a civil suit, even defending against the government, one isn't entitled to a free lawyer.
With a proper civil asset forfeiture scheme you can have rules like "if we prove to a certain standard that you did something bad then we're not just going to take the money you made through your illegal actions, we'll also come after a portion of the rest of the wealth you own"
That sounds very sensible. It also exists, and we call it "civil enforcement". And there is virtually no limit to the fines that can be exacted this way -- although the Court has set some outer limits. See, e.g. Timbs v Indiana and US v Bajakajian
anon_
1d ago
What sort of actual beneficial policies would be prohibited by the 5A?
Also, it's "cannot be seized except for a public purpose and after paying just compensation". That's a fairly big omission IMO.
anon_
1d ago
Um, yeah? Venezuela is not, in fact, part of the US. US law does not apply in Venezuela.
But US law does apply to US firms, and those firms are prohibited from assisting Venezuela in any way. The target of this statement is the former, not the latter.
anon_
1d ago
That's correct, the jury is told they cannot convict for both before their deliberation.
Which I think undermines the idea that the jury is gonna be mad about charging both, because it's not framed as two separate convictions that might both be applied, but two possible convictions of which at most one will be applied.
anon_
1d ago
If you thought it was 80% likely, you can get a spread of buy options for various times/prices. The loss (and gain) is completely bounded up front.
anon_
6d ago
As a juror I can imagine going ya he is guilty of the worst one, but it feels like legal BS to double charge him with a lesser crime that is the same thing.
It is -- the double jeopardy clause prevents double charging where the elements of one charge a proper subset of the other one. That's not a question for a jury tho.
In a hopeful-ish development, there appears to be an actual constituency and awareness within the left for the proposition that "allowing fraud undermines the support for the social programs we like".
More options
Context Copy link