In the past 12 years, $14.3 million has been paid to the Crown. In comparison, New South Wales [Pop. 7 million - Zen]has seized more than $100 million in the past 14 years.The onus will be on the person found 'not guilty' they mean. Technically, they aren't a criminal if they weren't found guilty. But hey, it's a Labour Government. Subtle distinctions like that may be beyond them.
The law has been criticised as too weak, requiring proof that assets were acquired by crime profits.
The Government is introducing new powers to up the stakes, lowering the threshold for proving the assets were obtained through criminal activity.
The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, now before a select committee, will allow courts to seize property even if a suspect is not convicted. The onus will be on the criminal to prove it was legally obtained.
Anyway, there are many opportunities for abusing this new power. Maybe we should be a little concerned? I'll just throw one idea down, because as far fetched as this sounds, it isn't really any different than the steps recently taken, such as the one requiring registration to express a political opinion if your group is going to advertise it.
If one looks at the reaction from the left to those that are spending money fighting the EFB, you can already see how this will play out. It will not be enough to merely cap the spending at $120K. You'll have people convinced that spending is way over the cap. Surely, the Police should be able to move in and seize the advertisements, take down the billboards, freeze assets and then expect the accused to fund a court defence to prove spending was proper?
Perhaps paranoid, but then, if I had suggested the farce that was the EFB process 12 months ago....
Related Link: Police grab the booty and bling