Police seize £67K cash from man because "he could not prove where the money came from

[KentPhilip]

Can I just make the point that many people have simply ignored that the police did not actually take the money off him, a magistrate did that.

About 95% of the facts of this case would not have been reported so I would not be jumping in to make judgments. Especially when the POCA software was so wonderfully written.

But the salient facts have been reported. Which are that the police/magistrates have taken money away from someone with no proof that the money is bent. Searches with HMRC showing that the money was not accounted for through them etc cannot prove that the money is bad, because there are so many legitimate ways the money could have been legitimately acquired without the authorities knowing about it - such as a gift. Absense of evidence (of a lawful source) is not evidence of absense (of the same).

[NotAllThere]

...
Taking away from this - further - the decision on the part of Jack Straw as Home Secretary to remove the right to silence of an accused now means that the refusal of an accused to say anything in a police interview can now be construed to be a statement of guilt. I mean, wtf?

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Where's the construing of guilt there. you might ask? Well, consider this.

[minestrone]

But the salient facts have been reported. Which are that the police/magistrates have taken money away from someone with no proof that the money is bent. Searches with HMRC showing that the money was not accounted for through them etc cannot prove that the money is bad, because there are so many legitimate ways the money could have been legitimately acquired without the authorities knowing about it - such as a gift. Absense of evidence (of a lawful source) is not evidence of absense (of the same).

I'm not saying what they did was right but I am very sure it was not just a case of "ahh, there is some money we are having that".

The BBC would not have sat in that room and heard all the evidence so I would be hesitant to go in with a judgment based on their reporting of the story.

[Menelaus]

I'm not saying what they did was right but I am very sure it was not just a case of "ahh, there is some money we are having that".

The BBC would not have sat in that room and heard all the evidence so I would be hesitant to go in with a judgment based on their reporting of the story.

That's a very good point. Salaciousness, previously the reserved patch of the Sun, Daily Star et al is now a staple of the journalistic trade - and journalism is the poorer for it.

Indeed, this is the reason why in my list of first-against-the-wall-when-the-revolution-comes, journalists are top of the list.

[AtW]

If he was trying to bring in £67k in cash into this country in airport without declaring and refusing to explain where money came from etc, then MAYBE in THIS case confiscating it was reasonable, otherwise that seems surrogate justice.

[Pondlife]

The BBC would not have sat in that room and heard all the evidence so I would be hesitant to go in with a judgment based on their reporting of the story.

Slightly off topic but...

The BBC wouldn't have been privy to the first hand information. They do almost no investigative journalism at all these days. They get almost all their info from AP or Reuters as do the dailies.

AP and Reuters do not investigate whether what they publish is factually correct but merely that it is accurately reported. The difference between the two is what makes modern churnalism pointless.

The main exception to this is the Mail which does do it's own investigating but only publishes that which fits its own agenda - regardless of whether it's true.

Just finished reading Flat Earth News which was a bit of an eyeopener TBH. Although I didn't agree with all of it.