Jury says LI couple in slavery case must forfeit mansion

Source: Courier news online

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. (AP) _ A jury has decided that a millionaire Long Island couple convicted in a slavery case must forfeit their mansion to the government.

The jury convicted Mahender and Varsha Sabhnani of imprisoning and torturing two Indonesian women who they had brought to the United States to work as housekeepers in their Muttontown house.

The jury has now determined that the 5,898-square-foot Sabhnani home on Long Island's Gold Coast was used in the commission of a crime.

The government can now seize the home where the couple had operated a worldwide perfume business.



Read more: http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/FRONT01/71219001

---

Good and I hope the bastards still get 40 years.

previous post on subject here : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3104474

GOOD!

That'll hurt these sociopaths about as much as jail time will!

they're losing one "big house" and going to "THE BIG HOUSE"! 40 years isn't enough!

Can the government seize it in ANY crime? I knew the could for drugs.

For example, if you are driving your car and get a Ticket AND the state law says that is grounds for confiscation of the car, you lose the car (No state has such a law, I use it as an example only).

This goes back to old Pirate days, where if a Ship was captured after being used as a pirate Ship, it was forfeit to the State, even if the true owners would show up and show they knew nothing of its use and demand their property back.

Here the House was part of the Crime, just like an old Pirate Ship. The house was where the Crime occurred, just like an old pirate ship, and as such can be forfeited if permitted by Statute (Which in this case seems to have been the case, thus the request for the jury to find the house part of the Crime).

The underlaying Statute is 18 USC § 1581 et seq. But Criminal Forfeiture is govern by 18 USC § 982. I suspect subparagraph 6 came into play (As a violation of Immigration and Nationality Act, NOT the Anti-slavery provisions).

(6) (A) The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of a violation of, or conspiracy to violate, section 274(a), 274A(a)(1), or 274A(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or section 554, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, or 1546 of this title, or a violation of, or conspiracy to violate, section 1028 of this title if committed in connection with passport or visa issuance or use, shall order that the person forfeit to the United States, regardless of any provision of State law--
(i) any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used in the commission of the offense of which the person is convicted; and
(ii) any property real or personal--
(I) that constitutes, or is derived from or is traceable to the proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of the offense of which the person is convicted; or
(II) that is used to facilitate, or is intended to be used to facilitate, the commission of the offense of which the person is convicted.

Please note 18 USC § 981 set forth CIVIL Forfeiture for many of the same crimes stated in 18 USC § 982 for Criminal Forfeiture but is NOT done as part of the sentencing of a Criminal as in this case. The Drug Forfeiture mostly done under § 981 Civil Forfeiture NOT 982 Criminal Forfeiture

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When I read that little screed the first person I thought of was Rupert Murdoch. You can't deny that he's one of the ones being addressed.

Not that there's a "solution" to the perceived "problem" on the poster's part. It's okay if you want to move here to become wealthy- just don't break the law or be incredibly unethical about it.

The real question is: why do so many uber-wealthy people seem to think laws and rules don't apply to them?

Answer: some people in positions of authority in this country think lots of money equals impeccable character and flawless moral judgment. The uber-wealthy trade upon that- just like this couple, or Rupert Murdoch.

In fact, it's par for the course for DU: let a minority commit a crime and the most vile shit imaginable gets spewed about the entire group. It's almost as if there's a segment of neanderthal knuggledraggers that can't wait for stories like this to come out so they get to say the shit they really want to say but can't in polite society, and then hide behind the excuse of "well, they're terrible people and they deserve it". Incidentally, this is also why GLBT DUers get so upset at "liberals" making homophobic cracks whenever a Repub hypocrite is outed.

I'm not excusing what these assholes did in the slightest, btw. They should be put under the jail. I just think it's telling--why can't the fact that they're rich entitled bastards stand alone, why does race need to be brought into it? Do you honestly think we DON'T have a caste system in this society? Shit, India's at least honest about it.

Even if I read it after that racist screed was deleted.

Indian born that were, as a group, problematic. I saw incidents that were very negative and based on caste including a physical assault when a member of "lower" caste was struck in the face for the manner in which he addressed an "upper" caste member. The Indian born supervisor cautioned all of us that were present that we were to forget what we had just witnessed. I knew many Indian born that were pleasant people and good to work with but far too many were arrogant, greedy, racist, and held Americans in contempt.

If I had been there, someone in a position of regulatory authority would have known within the hour.

And please, all you self-righteous PC police, spare me your manufactured outrage over my comment. People like me are treated as less than the family dog by our own State Department, and I'm intimately familiar with what it's like to be among the dregs of society.

Caste systems deserve no respect.

None whatsoever.

But I don't agree with seizing property as part of the punishment. I was against such seizures when they were first applied to drug crimes back during Reagan, and predicted that they would start us down a slippery slope. Here we are a couple of decades later seizing these people's house. What's next, seizing people's houses and property for any crime? Get a traffic ticket, your car is seized. Sorry, but we need to reverse this madness quickly.

However putting these people away for a long number of years, with a stiff fine is appropriate.

And only for serious breaches of the law, like murder, slavery, drug production, etc. As long as it can be shown that the property was utilized in the commission of the crime, and only if the government gives the proceeds to the victims or the victims families.

Besides if they get the full 40 years, how are they going to pay the taxes on a house that size with the pittance that their prison jobs will pay them.

Now Reading the Forfeiture law (See Post 20 above) the Forfeiture seems to come under Immigration law NOT Anti "Peonage and Slavery" Law, but the "Peonage and Slavery" Law permits CIVIL litigation for the same offense. Thus the victims can SUE this couple for any assets not forfeited.

in the big house - 40 years - 18 hrs./day.

If they lose it as part of damages to their victim, okay. But to have the government grab it? That's an enormous violation of Constitutional protections. And even slime are entitled to those.

And the Law making the act a crime clearly says that such property is forfeited. That appears to be the law applying to this case. The persons held by this couple where held in the house, it is this subject to forfeiture under 18 USCA § 982 (Through probably for a Immigration violation NOT for the Forced Slavery).

They had due process, and a jury of their peers stripped them of their home. Perfectly acceptable outcome in a democratic society. They're fellow citizens judged their crime to be worth the fine of their mansion. No different than when a jury demands a money fine.

Are you sure it was characterised as a fine? It didn't read that way to me, it read as though it was being imposed as an un-Constitutional "administrative forfeiture", separate and outside of any fine.

The deal is: every time we smile because it's "only" some scumbag being deprived of their rights, we set a precedent for being deprived of our own. It's the deprivation that's the important part, not who's being deprived.

THis mansion was deemed to be part of their filthy acquisition of wealth. I can't know for sure if the mansion was taken as a fine, but, I can see how that would be a substitute for a monetary fine (to take a property that is highly valued).

The day Joe Sixpack has his house removed for some frivolous issue, then we can start crying about civil liberties.

The day Joe Sixpack has his house removed for some frivolous issue, then we can start crying about civil liberties.

You're aware of the woman who lost her car because her husband was driving it when he solicited a prostitute? It's a landmark SCOTUS case, so you should be.

You're aware that (and I quote from the ACLU) "an innocent 72 year old grandmother, whose grandson, without her knowledge, allegedly makes a drug sale from her front porch is subject to losing her home and possessions without the benefit of indictment, hearing, trial, or any other constitutional or procedural protection - not even the right to counsel." (real case: see footnote 3. http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/sentencing/10837leg19970611.html)?

When you don't care whether scum are treated fairly, then you're supporting the rule of men, not the rule of law. BushCo is in power today, and more than a million innocent people have been killed because of the rule of men.

instead of "forfeiting it to the government".. You can bet your bottom dollar that some "government official" will end up living there..and the enslaved workers will be in not much better circumstances than before..

Yes, I know that pun is horrible in this situation.

:spray:

No sympathy for slave torturers...HIT THEM HARD!