A Legal Analysts of Asset Seizure as State-Sanctioned Criminality
Running out of money? Just steal from wealthy Russians!
Imagine waking up one day, only to find that your bank accounts, your investments, your savings—everything you've owned and worked for—have been frozen. No warning, no explanation, just a cold and heartless lockdown on your financial life. . . all because you happen to have been born in the wrong country or hold views your country has officially designated as ‘threats to security.’
By what authority does the government deny individuals access to their funds without even charging them with a crime? How can they justify seizing someone's money and diverting it for their own agenda, especially without legitimate jurisdiction in the first place? Can we interpret these actions as anything other than theft? Is state-sanctioned theft something our society should tolerate out of sheer trust for the state
Asset seizure without due process is an act of state-sponsored criminality that flagrantly violates Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which unequivocally asserts that everyone has the right to possess their property. In this article, we’re going to go over just some of the ways the government justifies it’s criminality through unconstitutional legislation that has slipped through the cracks of mainstream media.
“The First Shot in the New Cold War” - the late Robert Perry on Browder’s push for the Magnitsky Act to the U.S Congress
The Global Magnitsky Act est. 2016 - The fascinating thing about this act is that it offers extraterritorial reach, meaning it ‘allows’ the government to take action against individuals and entities regardless of their nationality or where the alleged violations occurred. The events leading up to this act can be best explained by the late Robert Perry here as well as in this documentary film, which while initially intended to implicate the Russian government, became a source of defense for the Russian Federation, showing how this act was far from diplomatic and completely antithetical to justice. It’s important to remember that 2016 was a time of particular tension between the growing U.S. Neo-lib/Neo-con forces (both of which wanted war, and more war, with Russia and are, practically, insuperable in nature) and the Russian Federation, and that this act helped prepare the legal framework which would, and indeed did, allow the government legal means to seize the assets of Russian nationals, regardless of whether or not they were legally affiliated with the Russian government.
Woodrow Wilson’s War-Mongering Legislation
On October 22, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson by Executive Order 2729-A created the Office of Alien Property Custodian (APC) under TWEA with power to confiscate property from anyone whose actions might be considered a possible threat to the war effort. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) est.1977 was an update attempting to modify the 1917 excustive order. The IEEPA gives the President of the United States the authority to stop, investigate and punish certain activities that are deemed threats to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. Under the guise of preventing weapons proliferation and combatting human rights abuses, the Act has successfully stifled the economies and citizens of Iran, Sudan, and Cuba, to name a few. GITMO isn’t exactly the Waldorf Astoria, but it’s not that bad, right? Under the act, governments can designate individuals from any country as human rights abusers or corrupt officials, and impose a range of penalties on them, all without due process or approval from the international criminal court. As a result, the avenues for recourse available to foreign nationals affected by these actions are limited, given that international criminality is sanctioned within domestic legislation. The ability of American presidents to target certain countries without Congressional oversight presents an obvious and understandable threat to national security and international relations.
The Stamp of US Imperialism - 18 U.S. Code § 981 and The Patriot Act
According to the US Constitution, asset seizure is an illegal act unless it is done as part of criminal proceedings. This means that asset seizure must be conducted with due process of law and with probable cause. The Patriot Act, however, gives the federal government broad powers to seize assets without such prerequisites and instead focuses on factors such as nationality. This effectively removes any check placed on the US government’s power to seize assets, and as a result, it is far more prone to abuse. To be clear, asset seizure based solely on on suspicion is a serious violation of civil liberties and human rights, as well as an act of international criminality for any member-state of the United Nations Human Rights Council regardless of domestic legislation.
By enabling the U.S. to seize assets abroad, these laws have extended the reach of U.S. law enforcement and legal processes beyond it’s legitimate jurisdiction, undermining the autonomy and control of other nations over their own assets and resources in what can only be reasonably described as an outright provocation of conflict.
£18 billion of assets owned by individuals and entities associated with the regime have been frozen since the beginning of the war, but some estimates suggest that more than £40 billion could yet be frozen and this is the point we want to get to.” source.
In response to NATO’s proxy war with Russia, sanctions freezing Russian assets have been imposed without the slightest investigation into whether the assets in question are directly linked to the current conflict or not. The disingenuous nature of the claimhe EU and NATO member-states have strategically formulated an approach to leverage frozen Russian assets for multiple objectives.
One key objective is to fuel the flames of ongoing conflicts by utilizing these assets to proliferate the war despite the obvious redundancy considering Russian forces are already striking Ukraine at a remarkable scale. Simultaneously, the EU and NATO member-states aim to exert control over global markets by capitalizing on the influence derived from manipulating these frozen assets. This calculated maneuver demonstrates their intent to wield economic leverage as a tool of power -regardless of the human cost- with the ultimate goal of shaping geopolitical dynamics and maintaining control in the international arena.
“If we do not have the right law in place to use those frozen Central Bank assets to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction, we should change the law and test it in the courts.” - Vicky Ford, U.K. Parliament, Tuesday 14 March 2023
It is that exact exact hegemonic control Putin condemned in his 2007 Munich speech, which I cannot recommend enough to my Western readers, as it outlines the risks of European imperialism towards Russia and the aftermath that comes with it: a less secure, less democratic, and overall, unhappier Europe. One should remember history is cyclical and try to avoid repeating regrettable mistakes.
““It does not matter how far you sail your yacht. It does not matter how well you conceal your assets. It does not matter how cleverly you write your malware or hide your online activity, the Justice Department will use every available tool to find you,” Garland said in a message to Russian oligarchs and “criminals’.” source
-The Shultz Report by M. Shultz