Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
As I read it one only has to satisfy the above definition in §9.2 (v) and §9.8 (A) conditions. As I understand it the "innocent" aspect is presumed as how can one show one didn't commit an act? i.e. one has to satisfy he conditions but the innocence is presumed unless evidence is presented to the contrary.
|
AIUI, under a presumption of innocence, one does not have to do anything to attain the status of innocence. Rather something has to happen, a guilty plea, or a gulity verdict, to change one's status from innocent to guilty.
The §9.8 (A) conditions that you refer to include:
Quote:
a victim ... may be granted remission, if ... the victim satisfactorily demonstrates that:...
(3) The victim did not knowingly contribute to, participate in, benefit from, or act in a willfully blind manner towards the commission of the offense, or related offense, that was the underlying basis of the forfeiture;
|
The fundamental difference between this and a presumption of innocence is that the victim must actually assert innocence in order to change status to qualify for remission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
An innocent owner is different from a victim as owners have standing to contest directly in the forfeiture proceedings.
|
Yes, as tamiller866 correctly pointed out, owners are treated differently, and with higher priority. "Innocent owner" is defined by the terms of the applicable civil forfeiture statue. Generally I expect you will find they are similar to 9.8(a)(3), and that the innocent owner will have to assert his status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
It still remains unresolved if players fall in this category [of "owners"],
|
The folowing parts of the regulation might apply:
Quote:
§9.2 Definitions
...
l) The term owner means the person in whom primary title is vested or whose interest is manifested by the actual and beneficial use of the property, even though the title is vested in another. ...
(p) The term property means real or personal property of any kind capable of being owned or possessed. ...
§9.6 Special rules for specific petitioners
(a) General creditors. A general creditor may not be granted remission or mitigation of forfeiture unless he or she otherwise qualifies as petitioner under this part.
...
(c) Voluntary bailments. A petitioner who allows another to use his or her property without cost, and who is not in the business of lending money secured by property or of leasing or renting property for profit, shall be granted remission or mitigation of forfeiture in accordance with the provisions of §9.5.
|
Given the definition of "owner", I doubt that the players would qualify as owners of the money. From the moment they deposited they didn't have title to, or actual and benefical ownership of, the money. The money was in an account belonging to, and under the control of, either a payment processor or the site, and it was not a trust account to the benefit of the player.
9.6 a) reinforces that creditor interests are not ownership interests. Players are most likely general creditors, who must hope to qualify as victims in order to have a hope of receiving remission.
Players may qualify as bailors entitled to remission, but only if money is "personal property". I doubt it is, but I really don't know for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
viz. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss an individual's player claim and his response.
|
link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
I'm sure one of the lawyers will be along soon to correct (and berate  ) us. |
One of the (retired) lawyers might berate us, but I, in my innocent ignorance, think you have got it substantially correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
I still view remission as a sort of last resort (and a long way off) for players and as I understand it is very much at the discretion of the appointed officials e.g. Part 9.8 (d)(3) allows them to deny a petition" if the total number of victims is large and the monetary amount of the remission so small as to make its granting impractical."
|
Agreed.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
