Government can not freeze assets not associated with the crime

[saevel25]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-freezing-assets-not-tied-to-crimes.html?_r=1

The ruling states if the money is not connected to the crime it can not be frozen by the government because it puts a burden on the defendants rights to get legal counsel through their own means. 

Quote

In dissent, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that the principle announced by the justices in the majority “rewards criminals who hurry to spend, conceal, or launder stolen property.”

“The true winners today,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted.”

I might say that this type of logic violates due process. If the person is innocent until proven guilty. Then it should be the governments burden to prove the assets where directly related to the crime at hand. If not then the government is punishing, denying the person the right to the defense they can afford, as well as punishing those not associated with the crime if that person had a family, before they were even found guilty of the crime. 

 

[iacas]

Planning something, Matt?