Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2134848, member: 28107&quot;]If a neighborhood kid steals your car, does he have a legally cognizable interest in your vehicle since it is in his custody?&nbsp; He is illegally exercising dominion and control over it, but he has no ownership interest.&nbsp; Whether the Langbords had custody of the pieces or not is not the question.&nbsp; If the coins were stolen, they Langbords never legally acquired a possessory/ownership interest and no forfeiture occurred, notwithstanding the fact that they held them for years.&nbsp; And the time of &quot;acquisition&quot; is what matters, not when a judicial order is entered.</p><p><br /></p><p>When the Langbords filed a suit under CAFRA alleging a prima facie case, the burden shifted to the government to prove that the coins were stolen and that CAFRA didn&#039;t apply.&nbsp; A jury and judge agreed that the coins were stolen.&nbsp; That is what matters.&nbsp; I think the jury verdict was wrong and should be set aside and the appellate courts rule on the facts or remand for a new trial.&nbsp; This is not was done.&nbsp; Regardless of the fact that I agree with the result, I think the Third Circuit erred significantly here.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in