[lagilogi]

This allows for the legal argument to seize the house of corrupt politicians and police officers. It also allows for the seizing of businesses from their owners and boards when their practices lead to economic crises.

It will however not going to be interpreted by lawyers and regulators as such. Because a politician, police officer, businessman, corporation all are more of a person in the eyes of law, compared to a simpleton woman charged with distribution.

The rule of the law does not exist.

[jmpman]

This was a jury decision. Yes, a jury can be persuaded by a good lawyer, and the “simpleton woman” may not have had a good lawyer, but it’s not like the decision was made by an arbitrary judge.

[hurricanetc]

Prosecutors were able to show that the only way she was able to keep and maintain the house was through profits from selling meth.

And it was a jury of her peers that voted to allow the forfeiture. If a politician accepts bribes and buys property with those bribes it is not unreasonable at all to expect that property to be seized.

[bitminer]

At least she was convicted.

Up here in the monarchy of Canada unconvicted persons can lose millions

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-administr...

It is common for the civil forfeiture office to attack accused persons prior to trial, denying them access to their own funds for paying a defence attorney. They can remain in pre-trial custody without legal representation for years.

They are currently litigating for seizure of three hells angels clubhouses on the theory they could be used in the future to engage in unlawful activity. 2019 BCSC 1421.