A court in Romania has rejected a request by influencer Andrew Tate to return assets that were seized during investigations into the case in which he is charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
Romanian authorities seized 15 luxury cars, 14 designer watches and cash in several currencies. The vehicles included a Rolls-Royce, a Ferrari, a Porsche, a BMW, an Aston Martin and a Mercedes-Benz. Authorities said the assets were worth an estimated 3.6 million euros ($3.9 million).
A trial date hasn’t been confirmed. The case is still being discussed in the preliminary chamber stages
I know people don’t like Andrew Tate, but this seems kind of fucked. They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial and taking his stuff? If this happened to a black man in the US people would be pissed.
He’s free to move around the country, he hasn’t even been on house arrest since August. Save your concern for the actual locked up people on shitty minor drug possession charges in the US.
I think freezing assets is a common practice when said assets may be put towards restitution for the victims if found guilty.
I have no idea how Romainia does it, or if they can be trusted to actually put the money towards the victims. But on paper, it seems like it could be for good reasons.
Or it could be for civil forfeiture kind of abuse of authority. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
What have you been smoking? This is completely normal practice everywhere AFAIK, if your wealth and assets were involved in a crime, or were gained from crime, they are 100% confiscated when judged guilty. If they aren’t seized ASAP, there’s a chance criminals can move it out of reach of authorities.
Regarding his possible innocence, I don’t think you have actually read about the case. The raid on his properties was because the police got notice about an American woman who managed to get a message out about being kidnapped. This woman was found on the premises, and the prosecutor has no less than 7 victims to testify!
If he is not guilty, which is doubtful, he will get everything back.
Again: If they aren’t seized ASAP, there’s a chance criminals can move it out of reach of authorities.
If he is not guilty, which is doubtful, he will get everything back.
And remember it’s ONLY things that relate to the case that are temporarily seized, while the trial is running.
So are you also in favor of killers keeping the murder weapon, and be free to move around, while the trial is running?
You are also wrong about Tate being locked up, he was in house arrest, but have been allowed to move around freely for months now.
I have personally tried to have things seized by the police, and yes it’s a major nuisance annoyance inconvenience and all that. When I got my stuff back, the value had declined dramatically. But despite that, I understand that’s the way it has to be. I don’t get why you can’t understand that?
It seems like there’s a lot of contradictions in this case.
No, a murderer shouldn’t get to keep the murder weapon, because it’s obviously evidence in the trial. I don’t think his luxury assets are evidence in the crime. (Unless he was smuggling girls in the trunk of his car, but it doesn’t sound like that’s why they were confiscated.)
If someone was charged with murder, they shouldn’t be released until after the trial because they could be a danger to other people. Tate was released, hasn’t been found guilty, yet the authorities are taking a bunch of his stuff.
I’m not arguing Tate should be in prison now, so your number 2 point is a strawman. You claimed: “They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial”, which is completely false. Why not just admit you made a mistake?
The part about a killer walking free, was to illustrate that criminal evidence or things that must be seized, can’t be allowed to be in the hands of a potential criminal during trial. In Tate’s case obviously because he can move his values out of the country.
To what degree they were used in the crime or were gains from the crime I do not claim to know. But why do you think he should be able to keep gains from crime during trial?
He is on record lauding Romania for its corruption, citing it as a major reason for having moved there. Dunno what to tell to tell him. He is presently bitching about reaping the exact crop he sowed.
Happens in the US all the time, actually. Tate is charged with a crime, and in a position analogous to someone who’s out on bail in the US. He’s free atm, just not allowed to leave the country. His assets have been seized, which is something that also happens all the time in America (https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture). The difference is Tate has actually been charged with a crime and, afaik, his assets will be returned to him if he’s found not guilty of the charges against him. In America, your assets can be seized without you ever actually being charged with a crime, and they’re not returned to you unless you go to court to prove your innocence. There’s a legal loophole where they declare that it’s your stuff, not you, that is on trial and stuff does not have civil rights, so taking your stuff does not violate your right to due process and suspicion (not of any crime in particular, just generally seeming suspicious) allows for the presumption of guilt. The people who decide whether or not your stuff is innocent of a crime also get to keep 100% of it if they decide that it is not, the person whose stuff is seized doesn’t have the right to counsel or even to know that there is a hearing taking place about seizing their stuff. Often times, they only find out that their stuff is on trial after the trial has completed, the stuff has been found “guilty” in absentia, and the police have come to steal it at gunpoint. I feel like it bears repeating that they often have no intention of accusing the owner of any crime, the decision as to whether to take the stuff is made by the people who get to keep the stuff, and that the matter is often already decided with no opportunity for appeal by the time the owner is made aware that any proceedings against them have begun. They often offer to return some of the assets in exchange for the owner’s agreement to not pursue the case further, essentially paying you off with your own money and relying on the fact that proving the “innocence” of your stuff will be expensive and time consuming (https://www.newsweek.com/theft-another-name-its-time-fight-back-against-civil-forfeiture-opinion-1821368)
So yeah, actually things in the US are much worse than what’s happening to Tate, and have been for some time. Google “civil asset forfeiture abuse” if you’d like to know more, but if you take only one thing with you from this discussion, let it be the fact that in 2014 the police stole more money than burglars, and they have taken more every year since 2004 (https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm)
I know people don’t like Andrew Tate, but this seems kind of fucked. They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial and taking his stuff? If this happened to a black man in the US people would be pissed.
He’s free to move around the country, he hasn’t even been on house arrest since August. Save your concern for the actual locked up people on shitty minor drug possession charges in the US.
I am concerned about that too, but it’s not the topic of the article.
They’re responding to your own hypothetical about a black man getting arrested in the US…
I think freezing assets is a common practice when said assets may be put towards restitution for the victims if found guilty.
I have no idea how Romainia does it, or if they can be trusted to actually put the money towards the victims. But on paper, it seems like it could be for good reasons.
Or it could be for civil forfeiture kind of abuse of authority. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
OR we could become experts in the Romanian legal system
Hm? I became one upon opening the comments section.
That’s what I was thinking, but I’m not an expert on the Romanian legal system either.
What have you been smoking? This is completely normal practice everywhere AFAIK, if your wealth and assets were involved in a crime, or were gained from crime, they are 100% confiscated when judged guilty. If they aren’t seized ASAP, there’s a chance criminals can move it out of reach of authorities.
Regarding his possible innocence, I don’t think you have actually read about the case. The raid on his properties was because the police got notice about an American woman who managed to get a message out about being kidnapped. This woman was found on the premises, and the prosecutor has no less than 7 victims to testify!
If he is not guilty, which is doubtful, he will get everything back.
Yeah, and that’s fine. But he hasn’t had his trial yet so hasn’t been found guilty, was my concern.
Again: If they aren’t seized ASAP, there’s a chance criminals can move it out of reach of authorities.
If he is not guilty, which is doubtful, he will get everything back.
And remember it’s ONLY things that relate to the case that are temporarily seized, while the trial is running.
So are you also in favor of killers keeping the murder weapon, and be free to move around, while the trial is running?
You are also wrong about Tate being locked up, he was in house arrest, but have been allowed to move around freely for months now.
I have personally tried to have things seized by the police, and yes it’s a major nuisance annoyance inconvenience and all that. When I got my stuff back, the value had declined dramatically. But despite that, I understand that’s the way it has to be. I don’t get why you can’t understand that?
It seems like there’s a lot of contradictions in this case.
No, a murderer shouldn’t get to keep the murder weapon, because it’s obviously evidence in the trial. I don’t think his luxury assets are evidence in the crime. (Unless he was smuggling girls in the trunk of his car, but it doesn’t sound like that’s why they were confiscated.)
If someone was charged with murder, they shouldn’t be released until after the trial because they could be a danger to other people. Tate was released, hasn’t been found guilty, yet the authorities are taking a bunch of his stuff.
I’m not arguing Tate should be in prison now, so your number 2 point is a strawman. You claimed: “They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial”, which is completely false. Why not just admit you made a mistake?
The part about a killer walking free, was to illustrate that criminal evidence or things that must be seized, can’t be allowed to be in the hands of a potential criminal during trial. In Tate’s case obviously because he can move his values out of the country.
To what degree they were used in the crime or were gains from the crime I do not claim to know. But why do you think he should be able to keep gains from crime during trial?
Items bought from the money gained in a bank robbery also gets confiscated.
So it is only logical that all the items bought with the money gained through sex trafficking also gets confiscated.
That is his own fault.
If he didn’t flee to Romania, he would have had his trail already in the UK.
He is on record lauding Romania for its corruption, citing it as a major reason for having moved there. Dunno what to tell to tell him. He is presently bitching about reaping the exact crop he sowed.
Happens in the US all the time, actually. Tate is charged with a crime, and in a position analogous to someone who’s out on bail in the US. He’s free atm, just not allowed to leave the country. His assets have been seized, which is something that also happens all the time in America (https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture). The difference is Tate has actually been charged with a crime and, afaik, his assets will be returned to him if he’s found not guilty of the charges against him. In America, your assets can be seized without you ever actually being charged with a crime, and they’re not returned to you unless you go to court to prove your innocence. There’s a legal loophole where they declare that it’s your stuff, not you, that is on trial and stuff does not have civil rights, so taking your stuff does not violate your right to due process and suspicion (not of any crime in particular, just generally seeming suspicious) allows for the presumption of guilt. The people who decide whether or not your stuff is innocent of a crime also get to keep 100% of it if they decide that it is not, the person whose stuff is seized doesn’t have the right to counsel or even to know that there is a hearing taking place about seizing their stuff. Often times, they only find out that their stuff is on trial after the trial has completed, the stuff has been found “guilty” in absentia, and the police have come to steal it at gunpoint. I feel like it bears repeating that they often have no intention of accusing the owner of any crime, the decision as to whether to take the stuff is made by the people who get to keep the stuff, and that the matter is often already decided with no opportunity for appeal by the time the owner is made aware that any proceedings against them have begun. They often offer to return some of the assets in exchange for the owner’s agreement to not pursue the case further, essentially paying you off with your own money and relying on the fact that proving the “innocence” of your stuff will be expensive and time consuming (https://www.newsweek.com/theft-another-name-its-time-fight-back-against-civil-forfeiture-opinion-1821368)
So yeah, actually things in the US are much worse than what’s happening to Tate, and have been for some time. Google “civil asset forfeiture abuse” if you’d like to know more, but if you take only one thing with you from this discussion, let it be the fact that in 2014 the police stole more money than burglars, and they have taken more every year since 2004 (https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm)
Land of the free.
He has the personality of a men’s lifestyle magazine ad.