State to impound drunk drivers' cars

[kingmonty]

Will they also sieze assets of those who defraud the state. Todays Sunday Times had an article about some woman who was a clerk at hospital and stole RM6 and bought house, farm, cars etc. Will these also be forfeited?

Most likely. These were acquired through criminal activity.

And what about Yengeni's famouse 4*4?

No. Yengeni was offered a discount which he failed to declare. That was the fraud part for which he was convicted (and received the small sentence for)

 

[kingmonty]

Making the law is all very well ... enforcing it, is another matter entirely. Lets take a look at the enforcers:

• Metro Police - they couldn't find their backsides with both hands.
• XXXX Licencing Dept - most should be closed due to corruption.
• Home Affairs - Oh dear, where do I start ...

The only time a vehicle is taken by police or metro is when the vehicle is impounded. This is already done and has been done in the past - and more often than many civilians think. This new interpretation of the Asset Forfeiture clauses in the applicable act do not affect this. This forfeiture is a different process and is handled by the courts and a special Asset Forfeiture Unit.

 

[IanC]

The only time a vehicle is taken by police or metro is when the vehicle is impounded. This is already done and has been done in the past - and more often than many civilians think. This new interpretation of the Asset Forfeiture clauses in the applicable act do not affect this. This forfeiture is a different process and is handled by the courts and a special Asset Forfeiture Unit.

You're missing the point entirely ... you're assuming the law has actually been enforced.

I have no problem with the law, my problem begins with SAs ability to enforce it.

 

[kingmonty]

You're missing the point entirely ... you're assuming the law has actually been enforced.

I have no problem with the law, my problem begins with SAs ability to enforce it.

*sigh*

FFS. SAPS cannot appropriate property. period.

Do me a favour - go and find one case where a vehicle or a house or any other asset has been seized by SAPS or Metro without due process. When you find one, let me know.

 

[IanC]

*sigh*

FFS. SAPS cannot appropriate property. period.

Do me a favour - go and find one case where a vehicle or a house or any other asset has been seized by SAPS or Metro without due process. When you find one, let me know.

Wow, you are missing my point entirely ... as I said, I agree with the law.

What I'm doubting is SA's ability enforce it ,,,

 

[kingmonty]

Wow, you are missing my point entirely ... as I said, I agree with the law.

What I'm doubting is SA's ability enforce it ,,,

Y? it's already being enforced (many assets have been seized over a couple of years now). The process will simply now be expanded. I know personally that the Asset Forfeiture Unit is both very competent and knowledgeable of the law.

 

[IanC]

Y? it's already being enforced (many assets have been seized over a couple of years now). The process will simply now be expanded. I know personally that the Asset Forfeiture Unit is both very competent and knowledgeable of the law.

You're assuming that this "competency" crosses civil service boundries.

 

[kingmonty]

You're assuming that this "competency" crosses civil service boundries.

"civil" services will never be permitted to run the process, they don't have the infrastructure to deal with it. The Asset Forfeiture Unit is in any case the only unit with the necessary jurisdiction in terms of the Act.

 

[IanC]

"civil" services will never be permitted to run the process, they don't have the infrastructure to deal with it. The Asset Forfeiture Unit is in any case the only unit with the necessary jurisdiction in terms of the Act.

This is all very well, but you're again asuming that SA has the ability to enforce the law ... which it currently doesn't

 

[kingmonty]

This is all very well, but you're again asuming that SA has the ability to enforce the law ... which it currently doesn't

But it is alread being enforced, through the Asset Forfeiture Unit. Nothing new is required, maybe (at most) an expansion of the Asset Forfeiture Unit will result.

Dude, this is not a new law. This was a test case using an existing law that has now expanded the reach of this law.

 

[IanC]

But it is alread being enforced, through the Asset Forfeiture Unit. Nothing new is required, maybe (at most) an expansion of the Asset Forfeiture Unit will result.

I have no problem with this statement.

Dude, this is not a new law. This was a test case using an existing law that has now expanded the reach of this law.

Dude, I am not doubting SA's ability to take a drunk driver's car, what I am doubting is their ability to enforce the drunk driving law (or any other traffic law for that matter) in the first place.

SA's ability to enforce even the most basic of traffic laws is (to put it mildly) impaired. It is impaired by:

• An incompetent and corrupt Metro Police force.
• Incompetent and corrupt XXXX Licencing Depts.
• Home Affairs (adjectives are inadequate)

SA has to start with getting the basics right when it comes to transport, only when it has done this (and only then) can it start implementing more punitive measures i.e. the wrong-doer actually has to stand a chance of being caught.

Edit:
Think about the cellphone law, how many people do you see getting pulled over and fined for that offence? Heck I've seen both Metro Police and SAPS driving while having a conversation on their cellphones.

 

[Leitmotif]

Just when you thought it was done:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=3538262

Pretoria - The supreme court of appeal's landmark judgment last week that a vehicle driven by a person under the influence of liquor could be forfeited to the state in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act may face a constitutional court challenge from a vehicle financier.

 

[Nod]

A typical scenario might be:
Guy gets busted for drunken driving, loses his car to the state. Get fired from his job, as he needs a car to perform his duties. He is now jobless, and can't get a new job, because he is still paying off the first one. Ends up being declared insolvent and the financier of his first vehicle just lost the everything.

I can understand how that will piss them off.

 

[supersunbird]

They also want to do the same to speedsters now...

 

[wamatt]

What I don't understand is how drunken driving can be interpreted as organised crime? AFAICS that is the law they are trying roll with. I just can't see how seizure of a car is justified. It smacks of Orwellian overtones and the are too many iffy cases:

- Bank finance
- Borrowed / lended vehicles to a friend
- Stolen vehicles

Whats wrong with good old fashioned jail time and or community service?

 

[TELESPHORE]

Just when you thought it was done:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=3538262

Was waiting for this one. It is not a good idea to try and fast rack law issues.
Abusing a law made for organized crime is a lame one.

So there goes my hope to get a Lambo for under 200k .

 

[TELESPHORE]

What I don't understand is how drunken driving can be interpreted as organised crime? AFAICS that is the law they are trying roll with. I just can't see how seizure of a car is justified. It smacks of Orwellian overtones and the are too many iffy cases:

- Bank finance
- Borrowed / lended vehicles to a friend
- Stolen vehicles

Whats wrong with good old fashioned jail time and or community service?

Agree 100%

A typical scenario might be:
Guy gets busted for drunken driving, loses his car to the state. Get fired from his job, as he needs a car to perform his duties. He is now jobless, and can't get a new job, because he is still paying off the first one. Ends up being declared insolvent and the financier of his first vehicle just lost the everything.

I can understand how that will piss them off.

Absolutely true. It starts a new cycle of injustice.

Convict and sentence the person.

 

[Chatmaster]

Mmmmmmmmm

Please excuse my ignorance, but I completely disagree with the laws that "legalize government theft". I simply do not trust our law enforcement structures enough to see them fit to legally steal people's private belongings. Furthermore, how is the value of the property calculated that are being seized? Is it even closely related to the evidence provided in a court of law?

I am highly disgusted in the high levels of legalized government crime activities that has become exceptable to the average South African citizen because it is thought of in general terms. "He stole a R100 so he must have stolen all his life,.. it is fair that they seize his house and blah, blah" That is absolutely BS. The pure arrogance of the Metro Ape that were on radio yesterday, by stating they arrested 40 people for outstanding fines, miffed me. I would love for him to say that to may face so I can show him his own "aambeie" That is a criminal act of "Blackmail!" He is actively blackmailing every person in Gauteng! Because the first thing I thought was Oh, bollie what if I have an outstanding fine I am not aware of! That is BS. I just made the decision 2day that I will not allow apes like our Metro Police Chief to let me fear living a normal life, the criminals they are SUPPOSED to harras are the ones this donkey is supposed be all over. However due to their lack of intelegence or something to that effect they can't seem to think of realistic systems that are workable? Sigh, excuse my rant, but I just feel that we as South Africans are way to adaptable. Asset forfeiture and taking of a motor vehicle of a drunk driver is not acceptable. It is legalized theft! Turning our cops into criminals instead of getting them so far as to doing their jobs.

 

[Darth Garth]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I completely disagree with the laws that "legalize government theft".

They have a duty to protect innocent people from those stupid dumb idiots in our society who think it is kief to drink themselves into a drunken stupor and still drive.

I fully support and applaud the govt for doing this.

 

[kaspaas]

They have a duty to protect innocent people from those stupid dumb idiots in our society who think it is kief to drink themselves into a drunken stupor and still drive.

I fully support and applaud the govt for doing this.

I share your opinion and actually would even prefer the state not to first pay the bank for the outstanding finance but leave that to the drunk driver.

But there are far too many other problems related to traffic law enforcement to consider this as a credilble process at present - and therefore I am at present against this.

Like the inability of the licencing departments to handle the demand for learner and final licencing tests

The chaos at vehicle licensing departments forcing one to rent a Q4U type service

(Both these are encouraging corruption and the sale of fraudulent documents)

The absense of a single easily accessable register of outstanding warrants so one could easily see if you are a victim of bad policing

The inability of authorities to control fake licence plates on cars

The inability of cops to copy the correct spelling of names and surnames from licenses (My brother got away with this one recently - 5 spelling mistakes in less than 25 letters - he claimed that it was obvious the cop was incompetent and the prosecutor had to agree)

One can go on like this.

Until the traffic police is proven to be professional, confiscating vehicles is nothing but high profiled drama to distract from the real problems.