Institute for Justice tackles a structuring-forfeiture case

The Institute for Justice is defending the owners of a grocery store in Fraser, Mich. who saw their bank account seized under forfeiture law on suspicion of structuring deposits (keeping them below $10,000 on purpose to avoid reporting). Video here. We’ve been covering the results of structuring law, and its intersection with forfeiture powers, for a while now, and its nice to see the issue attracting the notice of a group as formidable and high-profile as IJ.


  • Punished on “suspicion,” rather than conviction. The times they have a’changed.

  • Next up: prosecution for income tax evasion because defendant willfully refused to earn sufficient income to have the income tax liability that government believes defendant should have, based on age, education, profession, etc.

    Government will not need to prove any income greater than what defendant declares. Proof that defendant should have earned more according to government’s evaluation of his income producing potential will be sufficient.

  • The government lawyers and agents involved should be ashamed and face consequences. Oh wait, I forgot: they have no shame and (as discussed in another recent thread) a complete lack of consequences is a de facto benefit of government employment.

  • @ Fubar Has your ex-wife been talking to my ex-wife?