A court in Romania has rejected a request by influencer Andrew Tate to return assets that were seized during investigations into the case in which he is charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
So are you also in favor of killers keeping the murder weapon, and be free to move around, while the trial is running?
You are also wrong about Tate being locked up, he was in house arrest, but have been allowed to move around freely for months now.
I have personally tried to have things seized by the police, and yes it’s a major nuisance annoyance inconvenience and all that. When I got my stuff back, the value had declined dramatically. But despite that, I understand that’s the way it has to be. I don’t get why you can’t understand that?
It seems like there’s a lot of contradictions in this case.
No, a murderer shouldn’t get to keep the murder weapon, because it’s obviously evidence in the trial. I don’t think his luxury assets are evidence in the crime. (Unless he was smuggling girls in the trunk of his car, but it doesn’t sound like that’s why they were confiscated.)
If someone was charged with murder, they shouldn’t be released until after the trial because they could be a danger to other people. Tate was released, hasn’t been found guilty, yet the authorities are taking a bunch of his stuff.
I’m not arguing Tate should be in prison now, so your number 2 point is a strawman. You claimed: “They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial”, which is completely false. Why not just admit you made a mistake?
The part about a killer walking free, was to illustrate that criminal evidence or things that must be seized, can’t be allowed to be in the hands of a potential criminal during trial. In Tate’s case obviously because he can move his values out of the country.
To what degree they were used in the crime or were gains from the crime I do not claim to know. But why do you think he should be able to keep gains from crime during trial?
So are you also in favor of killers keeping the murder weapon, and be free to move around, while the trial is running?
You are also wrong about Tate being locked up, he was in house arrest, but have been allowed to move around freely for months now.
I have personally tried to have things seized by the police, and yes it’s a major nuisance annoyance inconvenience and all that. When I got my stuff back, the value had declined dramatically. But despite that, I understand that’s the way it has to be. I don’t get why you can’t understand that?
It seems like there’s a lot of contradictions in this case.
No, a murderer shouldn’t get to keep the murder weapon, because it’s obviously evidence in the trial. I don’t think his luxury assets are evidence in the crime. (Unless he was smuggling girls in the trunk of his car, but it doesn’t sound like that’s why they were confiscated.)
If someone was charged with murder, they shouldn’t be released until after the trial because they could be a danger to other people. Tate was released, hasn’t been found guilty, yet the authorities are taking a bunch of his stuff.
I’m not arguing Tate should be in prison now, so your number 2 point is a strawman. You claimed: “They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial”, which is completely false. Why not just admit you made a mistake?
The part about a killer walking free, was to illustrate that criminal evidence or things that must be seized, can’t be allowed to be in the hands of a potential criminal during trial. In Tate’s case obviously because he can move his values out of the country.
To what degree they were used in the crime or were gains from the crime I do not claim to know. But why do you think he should be able to keep gains from crime during trial?
Items bought from the money gained in a bank robbery also gets confiscated.
So it is only logical that all the items bought with the money gained through sex trafficking also gets confiscated.