Don't fall into the trap: Government penalizing private parties without due process can be appealing when it's a private party you don't like, but even those people deserve due process - that's the point, everyone does. Also it's arbitrary, unchecked power that is used for corrupt purposes, and by supporting it in a situation where you like to see it, you are legitimizing that power in every case.
Edit: It's tough to give due processs to foreign individuals, especially those who don't want to be found. But there are many ways, including via their own government, or via the fact that American company resources are used for these crimes - everyone in the US connects through an ISP operating on US soil.
Seems like some process was followed here to me.
FBI investigated a bunch of scams and found somebody assisted scammers. It's not like they pulled a name out of a hat and sanctioned them.
Where’s the judge in all of this?
Due process just means following pre-written law. ex. There's no judge involved when a cop shows up to a fight and arrests both people.
It's the same law [1] that everybody is talking about w.r.t. Trump's Tariffs except that global trade isn't emergent while Funnull is a new actor.
[1]: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201600880/pdf/DCPD-...
They arrest people to put them in front of a judge. This is nothing like that.
I'm sure the treasury department would love for the guy to appear in front of a judge.
However, he's also welcome to email an appeal [1].
Note: This is a civil penalty. Much like a traffic ticket and does not require a judge.
---
You won't necessarily show up in front of a judge if you get arrested. You may get released with no charges. You might also not get court time until a year+ from now inwhich case you'll probably plead guilty to time served regardless of the crime since it lets you out now.
Due process does not mean "judge approved". It just means consistent with written law.
[1]: https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially-designated-nationals-lis...
> a traffic ticket and does not require a judge
Yes it does. You can have a trial for your traffic ticket.
> Due process does not mean "judge approved". It just means consistent with written law.
That's just false. In fact, courts overrule laws and the procedures they authorize because they lack due process.
> Yes it does. You can have a trial for your traffic ticket.
A trial was not required for the city to issue you a ticket. You can contest the ticket in traffic court where you will _not_ get a jury of your peers.
Everything the government does can eventually be contested in court (with a judge). Even if Liu makes an appeal and it gets denied he can still turn to the courts.
> That's just false. In fact, courts overrule laws and the procedures they authorize because they lack due process.
This is a non-sequitur statement.
Courts overruling some laws and some procedures does not change the definition of "due process".
No court has overruled this law and no court has overruled cops being allowed arrest people without consulting a judge first.
> A trial was not required for the city to issue you a ticket.
A trial is not required for the police to arrest you for murder, which you can contest in court or not.
> Courts overruling some laws and some procedures does not change the definition of "due process".
It does when they overrule them for omitting due process, as I said.
Can you cite where in the US code of law a foreign criminal is afforded due process in a sanction action?
KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development v. Geithner and Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
In both of those cases the designated entity was incorporated in the US (KindHearts in Ohio, AHIF-Oregon in Oregon).
Those are names of cases, not laws.
Precedent fills out the finer points in how laws apply, or don't.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the common law system and its reliance on case law?
I didn't say it was illegal.
That's more of a problem with the US code of law than with the point GP is making.
I have 0 issues with the US sanctioning criminal organizations that are defrauding Americans. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s common sense which is why literally nobody is trying to defend the perpetrator in a court of law.
Evidence of active harm, if they were in the US they would have been raided. They get sanctioned and can sue instead.
> They get sanctioned and can sue instead.
Do you mean, if the government 'sanctions' you, your remedy is to sue the government?
The government can't sanction you without due process. Executive branch agencies have internal legal processes, with administrative judges, that can be appealed to the courts.
Also, you can't sue the government in most cases due to sovereign immunity.
I’m sure the folks running that scam center or the cloud service provider can afford to hire attorneys and argue their case.
The process is that they need to be designated by specified cabinet members based on published criteria. If Funnull believe that they weren't lawfully designated (e.g., because they're actually in Peoria or whatever), they can hire a lawyer and sue.
While we're at it, we should also tax all foreigners living abroad. All this due process stuff is expensive.
[flagged]
There are laws about when you can shoot someone during warfare. For example, you need to be a uniformed soldier, in most cases, of a party to an active conflict. The declaration of war and your uniform make the homicide legal.
The US has not declared war and these aren't acts of war.
> The declaration of war and your uniform make the homicide legal.
Declarations of war have very little international importance any more, since the recognition of the crime of aggression; either you are engaging in aggressive war, which a declaration does nothing to legitimize, or you are engaging in defensive war against an aggressor, where it is the aggression, not any declaration, that gives your fighting legitimacy.
They are a foreign company. They have no due process rights. We could hit their data center with a cruise missile tomorrow and it would be perfectly legal.
> They are a foreign company. They have no due process rights.
That is part of my point; there needs to be due process.
> We could hit their data center with a cruise missile tomorrow and it would be perfectly legal.
That is false. It is illegal to take military action against another country without a declaration of war.