After reading this, I felt incensed and read it again to see if the comments were in fact in context with the PR statement, it seems so.
Here we have potential laws that make anyone who has ever bought anything without a receipt a potential money launderer and face the very real prospect that at some time in the future you could find yourself having to explain your innocence under the imminent presumption of guilt.
Very UN-AUSTRALIAN, ................ Nazi really ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. So truth is often stranger than fiction and in this case it seems that fiction can now become truth. I always have difficulty when new laws and regulations are brought in that place the onus on innocent members of the general community, the consumers if you will, to ascertain that an illegality has not taken place in the past at some time in association with a product they may purchase.
Bligh has put her hand up as usual claiming the kudos for this little gem which in effect could go as far as making orders against community members who have purchased items in good faith from sources like garage sales, flea markets , swap meets and even "ebay" where it is unlikely that genuine proof of ownership will be provided for any item on display or advertised for sale.
It is hard to imagine where the brain cells of the person who dreamed this idea up have spent their time, to actually believe that making ordinary consumers, out to stretch the tiny amount of money the government leaves of what you earn each week for a few needs or even luxuries, into money launderers for completing a simple act of buying an item.
It is obvious that the police have once again put up their hand and said we can't catch alledged criminals so we'll FORCE the public to reduce the market for their illicit goods.
Ahh, but this goes even one step beyond that into the grey by a good yard or two because the item itself didn't actually have to be illegal, or bounty of illegal activity or even the proceeds of a crime , they can just be an item that may be substituted for one of the previous items before you purchased it.
Now I ask the question, how the F^%$# are ordinary people supposed to guess that??
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland
The Honourable Kerry Shine
07/09/2008
CRIME WILL NOT PAY SAYS BLIGH
The Premier has announced plans to toughen the State Government's ability to confiscate the proceeds of crime.
The proposed crackdown will include:
• A new power to seize a criminal's overseas property.
• A new power to substitute alternative possessions for seizure when a criminal has already disposed of tainted property.
• A new offence targeting people who recklessly handle stolen goods or cash with a maximum penalty of ten years in prison.
"Under this crackdown crime will not pay in Queensland. These laws will mean that even when the criminal thinks they got clean away with it, they haven't," said the Premier.
The Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act governing the confiscation of proceeds of crime in Queensland was introduced in 2002.
"Over $18 million in proceeds of crime have been recovered in that time and the law is working well, but there are a number of loopholes that we now want to close," said Ms Bligh.
The Premier said that under current laws courts cannot make an order compelling a person to return property to Queensland which is held outside of the State.
"Under these new laws the Court could order a person to return money in a Swiss bank account to Queensland.
"It stops criminals taking their loot offshore and out of reach," she said.
Ms Bligh said the new laws would allow authorities to seize alternative property when a criminal has already disposed of tainted property.
"This means a criminal can actually lose their own home if the proceeds of their crime cannot be recovered," she said.
The Premier said she also welcomed a new offence of reckless money laundering for people who deal in property they should reasonably have suspected was tainted.
"We've all heard the stories of someone who got a great deal on a cheap stereo or TV sold out of the boot of a car," Ms Bligh said.
"What many people don 't think about or don't want to think about is that they have most likely paid for stolen property.
"What we want to do is make it an offence of money laundering if people are reckless on their consideration as to whether the property was tainted. This will bring us into line with a number of other Australian jurisdictions."
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Kerry Shine said current laws make it difficult for investigators to charge people with money laundering if they have purchased tainted property.
"Currently police have to prove the person buying the stolen item knew it was tainted before they can be charged," Mr Shine said
"Under the new law police would be able to charge someone with money laundering if they have been reckless in their consideration about where that property has come from."
"We're proposing the new sentence would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and I hope it will make people stop and thin k about where an item they are considering buying has come from."
Ms Bligh said the measures were designed to provide authorities with greater power to fight organised crime.
"We are determined to ensure those people involved in organised crime do not profit from it and that means taking from them assets which were acquired through their illegal activities," she said.
The proposed laws are scheduled be introduced into Parliament by December 2008.
So will we get any say on this or will it be another midnight rush through, I also wonder if anyone has alerted the people at ebay ?
