Police sieze £160k at Kent ports

[4me2]

Police sieze £160k at Kent ports




Specialist police seized £160,000 in just four days from passengers travelling through two Kent ports.
It was feared the cash was either obtained illegally or could be used to fund illegal activity, and was seized by Frontier Operations officers under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
In the first incident, on September 30, £3,000 was taken when two men in a pick-up truck were searched at Folkestone, and the stash was found in a camera case and wallets.
Two days later, also at the Channel Tunnel, two Kosovan men were stopped, and a carrier bag found, packed with 43,000 Euros and £6,000.
In the final incident, two days later at Dover's Eastern Docks, a passenger dropped a package when challenged by officers. On searching him and a passenger, several packages were found, containing a total of 80,000 Euros.
Detective Inspector Charlie Stokes said: "Our officers based at the ports work hard around the clock searching people and vehicles entering and leaving the UK.
"They use various means to find contraband, disrupt criminal activity, apprehend suspects, keep our borders safe and gather intelligence.
"The work they do is particularly important because Kent is the gateway to both the UK and Europe."
Arrests were made for each incident, with the suspects released on bail for investigations to be carried out.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonli...ieze_160k.aspx

[super mike]

What happens when/if their investigations are inconclusive or they find the money is all kosher?

[Cracker]

Its for the suspects now to prove that the money has been obtained legally and to prove where they got it from. If they can't the police forces get to keep it.

[4me2]

Its for the suspects now to prove that the money has been obtained legally and to prove where they got it from. If they can't the police forces get to keep it.

Which is also wrong in my view.

Surely the burden of proof lays with the accuser and not the accused.

[Cracker]

Its one of the very few pieces of legislation in this country where the burden of proof is based on the accused. the only other one I can think of is Drunk in charge where it is supposed to be the accused who has to prove that he/she were unlikely to drive.

In a way, although it may appear wrong on first thought, it does make sense as it is almost impossible for police/customs etc to prove where the money comes from, as many of the money launderers/ big players in the drug markets are so good at covering their tracks.

[Warno]

Also speed cameras, you have to prove you weren't at the wheel or its your fault!