Safer than cash?

[Lootman]

there is no way the police would let someone walk away with a bag of cash if they refused to answer any questions. I respectfully suggest you read the link I posted.

I was not making predictions. I was stating what the law says.

Since the legal question is resolved, the remaining topic is your views about what the law should be. That is off topic for this board so I will leave you to it.

[AF62]

there is no way the police would let someone walk away with a bag of cash if they refused to answer any questions. I respectfully suggest you read the link I posted.

I was not making predictions. I was stating what the law says.

Since the legal question is resolved, the remaining topic is your views about what the law should be. That is off topic for this board so I will leave you to it.

And as I posted the law says in the circumstance I described the police would be perfectly entitled to seize the bag of cash.

You may wish the law to be different, although I don't understand why, but it isn't.

[melonfool]

I had a boyfriend who was stopped by police for not wearing a seatbelt, he had a video recorder in his van (and nothing else), it was Christmas Eve, he refused to say why it was there, they arrested him. He wasn't out til Boxing Day.

It wasn't stolen or illegally procured in any way.

Mel

[Lootman]

I had a boyfriend who was stopped by police for not wearing a seatbelt, he had a video recorder in his van (and nothing else), it was Christmas Eve, he refused to say why it was there, they arrested him. He wasn't out til Boxing Day. It wasn't stolen or illegally procured in any way.

The prudence of talking to the police versus saying nothing is something we could debate although, as noted above, it's wandering rather far from the topic here. There are probably times when you should answer a question, and other times when you should remain silent. The problem is that you don't always know which is which at the outset. It really depends on the suspicions of the policeman, and how aggressive and tenacious he is about trying to get you for something (regardless of whether you did anything wrong or not).

One thing is clear: the police caution in the UK is somewhat prejudicial in how it affirms the right to silence but then rather unhelpfully tries to give you some advice on what a court might later consider. The advice to "keep your mouth shut", which criminal lawyers invariably advise, is based on the fact that the best thing to say in a given situation is often not the first thing you blurt out. And that cops generally cannot be just talked out of a situation where they believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are guilty of something.

Often the worst case with not answering questions is what happened in your example - you are detained for a few hours, or perhaps a day/night, and then released. I was held overnight once but then released in the morning - never heard about it again. If talking would have led to a worse outcome then a temporary detention might not be so bad - you can talk your way into trouble by talking too much and trying too hard, even if innocent.

Regardless, neither not answering questions nor being in possession of a large amount of cash is a crime in and of itself. There needs to be more for a prosecution, let alone conviction. In practice it may be enough for an arrest, depending on the cop. Many arrests are reversed if a case cannot quickly be made.

Finally it would be my own intent, if serving on a jury, to not interpret the defendant's silence, or election not to testify, as having significance. I suspect other jurors may take a different view and believe that silence is suspicious.

[PinkDalek]

Regardless, neither not answering questions nor being in possession of a large amount of cash is a crime in and of itself. There needs to be more for a prosecution, let alone conviction. In practice it may be enough for an arrest, depending on the cop.

How much more cash and would it have to be in £fifties (I might be on the wrong thread, I can't recall, as there are two similar versions at the moment).

Edit: This one appears to be the one where we've been asked " When contributing imagine the original question was something like "DAK if contactless cards are safer than cash?" " . So on that front, loads of [potentially dodgy] contactless cards in one's possession may lead to an arrest. Especially if one remains silent as to why they show a variety of names on them.


So which is safer to avoid arrest?

[melonfool]

Often the worst case with not answering questions is what happened in your example - you are detained for a few hours, or perhaps a day/night, and then released.

Well, I didn't actually say what else happened.

Actually, they came and searched our house while he was in the police station.

Mel

[Imbiber]

Did they have a search warrant?

[melonfool]

Did they have a search warrant?

No, they asked nicely and it seemed inadvisable to say no.

This was over 25 years ago and I was about 22.

Mel

[Howard]

there is no way the police would let someone walk away with a bag of cash if they refused to answer any questions. I respectfully suggest you read the link I posted.

I was not making predictions. I was stating what the law says.

Since the legal question is resolved, the remaining topic is your views about what the law should be. That is off topic for this board so I will leave you to it.

This very issue was addressed in a programme called "The Prosecutors" on BBC2 tonight. The police explained that if a suspect caught with a huge amount of cash in their house refused to explain where they got it from and just answered "no comment" they would forfeit the cash which would be seized. So AF62 appears to be correct.

regards

Howard

[Lootman]

This very issue was addressed in a programme called "The Prosecutors" on BBC2 tonight. The police explained that if a suspect caught with a huge amount of cash in their house refused to explain where they got it from and just answered "no comment" they would forfeit the cash which would be seized.

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "forfeit" and "seized"?

So if it means that the cops would take the cash into custody as "evidence" of what they believe they will discover is some crime, then yes, I am sure they would.

And if indeed that crime is proven then that cash would be permanently forfeited, since it was the "proceeds of a crime". If I rob a bank and get caught, I do not get to keep the money! Nor do the cops - it goes back to the bank.

But if on the other hand there is no conviction, or even no prosecution, or even no charges, then I feel sure the money has to be returned. The burden of proof is on the police and prosecution to make their case beyond reasonable doubt, and you are under no obligation to help them put you away by running your mouth.

[AF62]

This very issue was addressed in a programme called "The Prosecutors" on BBC2 tonight. The police explained that if a suspect caught with a huge amount of cash in their house refused to explain where they got it from and just answered "no comment" they would forfeit the cash which would be seized.

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "forfeit" and "seized"?

So if it means that the cops would take the cash into custody as "evidence" of what they believe they will discover is some crime, then yes, I am sure they would.

And if indeed that crime is proven then that cash would be permanently forfeited, since it was the "proceeds of a crime". If I rob a bank and get caught, I do not get to keep the money! Nor do the cops - it goes back to the bank.

But if on the other hand there is no conviction, or even no prosecution, or even no charges, then I feel sure the money has to be returned. The burden of proof is on the police and prosecution to make their case beyond reasonable doubt, and you are under no obligation to help them put you away by running your mouth.

So you think after your carrier bag of cash has been seized by the police then just going along and saying "give it back and I am not going to say anything more" is going to get your cash! Excuse me whilst I get up from the floor laughing.

[Lootman]

So you think after your carrier bag of cash has been seized by the police then just going along and saying "give it back and I am not going to say anything more" is going to get your cash! Excuse me whilst I get up from the floor laughing.

Depends. If a conviction proves that my cash rightly belongs to another then I would not expect to get it back. If not, then I would.

Can you show me the law that allows otherwise?