[Jesse]

Bad idea.

I have no problem with criminal charges against corporate executives who commit fraud, and then seizing assets, but I have a big problem with giving the government authority to seize property "just in case" or because someone "might" be guilty. Where is a 15 million dollar mansion going to go, anyway. Unlike drug dealers, the assets of white collar types are going to be much easier to track. After these big scandals are gone, the law will still be on the books, and it will be abused.

Just like the PATRIOT act, this is an election year stunt which is unnecessary and which will have unintended, bad, consequences.

[grania]

I have no problem with criminal charges against corporate executives who commit fraud, and then seizing assets, but I have a big problem with giving the government authority to seize property "just in case" or because someone "might" be guilty.

I agree with you. Try these executives, determine if they're guilty of anything, and mete out appropriate punishments according to the law.

I also see the potential for this new crackdown to be applied unequally, with more charges being levied on those out of political power. A lot of this money was earnend legally...are they going to go after people for looking too rich? I'm also uncomfortable when residences are involved...these people have families and lives that will be affected.

New laws or restrictions always make me uncomfortable, because someday, somehow, they might be applied against me, by some unintended application.

[Dales]

but I have a big problem with giving the government authority to seize property "just in case" or because someone "might" be guilty.

And you can provide some backing for the assertion that this proposed legislation does this? It isn't in the story, and the legislation hasn't even been written or introduced yet, so exactly how (or more importantly, why) did you jump to this conclusion?

[dirtboy]

What you said, plus one other issue - IMO this is basically an ex post facto law, trying to add punishment after the fact. As much as I'd like to see these swindling jerks end up in a double-wide, you can't change the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed - assuming of course, that there WAS a crime committed, which everyone seems to be in a headlong rush to do here. Must be an election year.

[A. Pole]

I have a big problem with giving the government authority to seize property "just in case" or because someone "might" be guilty.

Why would someone need so much property anyway? :)

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I agree, please read #120.