Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Forfeiture is broadly defined as the loss of property for failing to obey the law, and that property is generally lost to the state. A person may have a vested interest in property to be forfeit in two ways: In personum jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction .
Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the authorities. In the United States, it is a type of criminal-justice financial obligation . It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime.
Fines and forfeiture of property – These are considered a form of punishment. In February 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that civil asset forfeiture may constitute excess fines and therefore be unconstitutional, even when imposed by states. [3] Costs and fees – These may include court costs, fees for supervision, payments for legal ...
Forfeiture is the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform, etc. Per U.S. v. Olano , if a defendant has waived a right, then he cannot obtain redress in appellate court.
Normally both civil and criminal forfeiture require involvement by the judiciary; however, there is a variant of civil forfeiture called administrative forfeiture, which is essentially a civil forfeiture that does not require involvement by the judiciary, which derives its powers from the Tariff Act of 1930, and empowers police to seize banned ...
In various sports, a forfeit is a method in which a match automatically ends, and the forfeiting team loses.. There are two distinct forms of forfeiture. One occurs when a team is unable (or refuses) to meet the basic standards for playing the game, either before the game begins or as a result of actions that happen during the match.
The legal order itself is in the form of an injunction, which in Commonwealth jurisdictions is also known as a freezing order, Mareva injunction, Mareva order or Mareva regime, after the 1975 case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA, [2] although the first recorded instance of such an order in English jurisprudence was Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis, [3] decided one ...
(1) The court shall not make an order under this section modifying the effect of the forfeiture rule in any case unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender and of the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the court to be material, the justice of the case requires the effect of the rule to be so modified in that case.