No Right Turn is rightly concerned at the outrageous asset forfeiture laws being introduced by this Government which, if introduced, would allow assets to be seized on a civil ("balance of probabilities") standard of proof. As Idiot/Savant says, "if the bill becomes law, we won't just be seizing the property of those who are probably criminals, but that of those who might be. This is a ridiculously low standard of proof, and one that is a blatant end-run around the checks and safeguards of the justice system."
And one that National's Vile Ryall and Richard Worthless have complained is only a "watered down version of National's own policy" to steal from people without even 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' of their guilt. Ryall is on the record as wanting to end the presumption of innocence altogether for those accused of 'drug crimes.' It seems both big parties are happy to trade away our fundamental legal protections--protections we have (or had) for very good reasons.
Bear in mind there are already have laws in place to confiscate assets, with $280,000 of New Zealanders' assets being confiscated every month because courts decided 'on the balance of probabilities' these assets were "tainted." These laws are deemed insufficently jack-booted however, since a conviction is needed before a person's home or farm is siezed; so that is to be changed to take, not just assets that are "tainted,' but everything a person owns. Everything. Phil Goff says he is hoping for an enormous increase in amounts confiscated.
Here's how similar laws work in Britain: a brothel owner being 'stripped of her millions' on a 'balance of probabilities' because she offered services there that are now rightly legal here. NRT again: "We would not tolerate a court fining suspected criminals on such low standards; this is no different."