Civil Asset Forfeiture

Man Says Oklahoma Police Seized $140K From Him Without Cause

Canadian County Sheriff's deputies said Thai Nang's cash was drug money. He says he was buying land, and a local news outlet was easily able to find records backing his story up.


A New Mexico man says Oklahoma sheriff's deputies seized more than $140,000 from him and his business partner on baseless suspicion of drug trafficking, and a local news outlet found the records to back up his story.

Last week, Oklahoma news outlet News 4 reported that Thai Nang, a New Mexico businessman, claimed that the Canadian County Sheriff's Office seized roughly $141,500 in cash from him and his partner during a traffic stop in April.

Nang says he and a business partner were traveling to buy a piece of land when they were pulled over. Sheriff's deputies searched the car and found the money. Nang alleges that when he tried to explain that it was for a property purchase, a deputy responded, "I'm 300 percent sure that's illegal money."

There's nothing illegal about traveling with large amounts of cash, but police often claim it's the fruits of drug trafficking. Under a practice called civil asset forfeiture, police can confiscate property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even when the owner hasn't been charged with a crime.

Many forfeiture stories start this way, with travelers saying they were carrying large amounts of cash to buy vehicles, deposit it into a bank account, or simply gamble on vacation.

In Nang's case, though, there are records to back up his story.

News 4, apparently more intrepid investigators than the sheriff's office, obtained the bill of sale and interviewed the owner from whom Nang was intending to purchase the property.

"It was a verbal deal and they were on their way back in town to finalize it," the property owner told News 4. "It was $100,000 for the land and then they needed, I think, $30-40,000 to upgrade the electricity and the water for their operation. Why didn't they just look at the bill of sale we have?"

Nang also claims the amount the sheriff's office reported seizing is roughly $10,000 short of the actual amount.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, says Oklahoma's loose forfeiture laws enable such abuses.

"Canadian County, Oklahoma is a highway interdiction hotspot and this latest attempt to forfeit money belonging to out-of-state business owners appears to illustrate how easily Oklahoma's forfeiture laws can be abused," Institute for Justice senior attorney Dan Alban says. "In addition, there is a history of racial disparity in seizures and forfeitures in Canadian County, as well as several other populous counties in Oklahoma, and this just appears to be the latest example."

For example, the Institute for Justice represented a Burmese refugee named Eh Wah. In 2016, Wah was driving across the country as the manager of a Christian band that was raising money for a Burmese orphanage. When deputies from the Muskogee County Sheriff's pulled over the band's tour van, they found $53,000 in cash the band had raised.

Despite not one iota of drugs being found in Eh Wah's van, the deputies seized the money, claiming it was drug proceeds. The sheriff's office released the money back to Wah two months later, the same day that The Washington Post published a story on his case.

More than half of all U.S. states have passed some form of asset forfeiture reform over the last decade, as similar stories of abuses have piled up. Earlier this month, Maine became the fourth state to effectively abolish civil asset forfeiture altogether.

But until more states require convictions or raise the standard of evidence before property can be forfeited, more cases like Nang and Wah's will keep popping up.

The Canadian County Sheriff's Office was not immediately available for comment.

NEXT: Women Are on the Verge of Being Forced Into Military Conscription Due to a Perverse Notion of 'Equality'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump Supports Civil Asset Forfeiture Even Without Conviction

    “We’ll destroy his career,” President Donald Trump said of a Texas legislator who has reportedly introduced legislation to curtail civil asset forfeiture — the practice of taking a person’s property allegedly used in the commission of a crime — unless the individual is convicted of a crime.

    Trump made his remarks, which were taken as joke, at a February 7 White House meeting with sheriffs from across the country (shown). But even if the remark was not taken seriously by the sheriffs, who laughed at the “threat,” it is clearly indicative of the president’s position on the issue.

    During the meeting with the sheriffs, the issue of civil asset forfeiture (CAF) was discussed at some length. Sheriff Aubrey of Jefferson County, Kentucky, raised the issue: “The other thing is asset forfeiture. People want to say we’re taking money and without due process. That’s not true. We take money from dope dealers.”

    1. You do realize Trump's not president anymore, right? He's also not a member of the Oklahoma legislature. No matter how deranged his views were on CAF, he has nothing whatsoever to do with this story.

      1. SPB2 thinks the election was a fraud.

        1. GoogIe ahora paga entre 17488 y 24900 dólares al mes por trabajar en línea desde casa. Me incorporé a este trabaj0 hace 2 meses y he ganad0 $ 27540 sdv en mi primer mes de este trabajo. Puedo decir que SA mi vida ha cambiad0, ¡compIetamente para mejor! Mira lo que hago.>>>> VISIT HERE

          1. Besa usted mi pero.

            1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65000 to $70000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.
              You can check it out here…—–> READ MORE

      2. "You do realize Trump’s not president anymore, right? "

        Uh, how many Republican pols would defy him on this if it came to it? So it's still a bit relevant, no?

        1. Trump has zero power, so no it’s not relevant. Buttplug just has this uncontrollable Trump obsession.

          Besides which it’s not as if the other team is any better on asset forfeiture. It’s not as if Trump will be using his mind control power anytime soon to stop reform of this stuff.

        2. No it is not. He’s not even for it. He was making a joke about it. I’m sure he’s for it like most people are if it can be proven that it is truly drug money. The laws in Oklahoma need to be tightened up. This guy should have never had his money confiscated. The cops shouldn’t be taking anyone’s money without proof of criminality. Period.

          1. So when I say he’s not for it I mean by just taking everyone’s money even people that aren’t drug dealers or criminals. When I say he’s for it like most people I mean in the instances when it’s provable drug money and only then.

      3. They just can’t let go of him. Liberals, democrat pols, the msm, they need someone else to blame or make the story about. That’s all they got. It’s actually pretty sad, the left talks about Donald Trump more than the right. It’s the only way to get their side to be interested in any of their shit. Besides that their ideas are shit and their tactics are obnoxious.

      4. Kiddie Raper has nothing else. He’s pathetic.

        And I wouldn’t click on any link he puts forth. Odds are it will end up at a kindergarten gang bang or some other sick shit he’s into. He really deserves a violent agonizing death.

    2. "...Trump made his remarks, which were taken as joke, at a February 7 White House meeting with sheriffs from across the country (shown). But even if the remark was not taken seriously by the sheriffs, who laughed at the “threat,” it is clearly indicative of the president’s position on the issue..."

      No, this is one more piece of lefty shit quoting a remark made in humor and trying to make something of it.
      turd lies; it's what he does. If he post stats, they are outright lies or cherry-picked such as to be meaningless.
      Every post from turd contains at least one lie, and often the entire post is dishonest in one form or another.
      turd lies; it's what he does.

    3. Trump Supports Civil Asset Forfeiture Even Without Conviction

      Trump says a lot of things to a lot of people, often wildly contradictory. What matters is what policies he actually implemented. Did Trump enact regulations or sign laws making asset forfeiture easier?

      Biden certainly did.

  2. "...the Canadian County Sheriff's Office seized roughly $141,500 in cash..."
    How much is that in American money?

    1. $141,500

      1. Whoooooosh

        1. Yeah, she’s an idiot.

    2. Canadian County, Oklahoma. Not sure the conversion on Sooner-Bucks

      1. What's the ration of Stanley nickels to Sooner-Bucks?

      2. I thought it was the sheriff who was Canadian.

      3. And I thought Molly didn't get the joke.

        1. If a joke posted on-line crashes and burns, is the problem with the reader, or the poster who posted a joke that wasn't even close to being funny?

          1. Probably the reader, because that was funny.

            1. And it’s Molly, so the assumption is that she’s a moron.

              1. I think we're well past assumption and into firmly demonstrated at this point.

            2. yes it was.

              1. Very loud Norm MacDonald voice, explaining a joke to Conan afterwards: "See, it's a county in the US named Canadian, so one wonders what the dollars would be converted to US dollars, from Candian dollars. Because the dollars do not exchange at 1 for 1.

    3. The title is "Man says".

  3. "I'm 300 percent sure that's illegal money"

    ", and *400* percent sure I'm an idiot!"

    1. I'm 300 percent sure the shortage of nearly 10,000 dollars is lining the deputy's pocket.

      1. The deputy could not be reached for comment due to him riding trails in his new side by side.

      2. To be fair, that would make it illegal money since the deputy stole it.

        1. But he can’t be sued because no cop has ever stole $10k while legally stealing $141,500 before - how would they know that’s illegal?

          1. This would be funnier if it weren't likely a winning argument in court. :-\

      3. Reminder: Decades ago Cops had an incident where a good ol' boy pulls over a Mexican family and finds $8000 in a tire in the trunk. He takes it and lets them go.

        Remember this is the kind of crap they fled in Mexico.

        Anyway, Congress held a hearing and Congressmen slammed their fists on the table and wondered why the cop was not in jail. Jail!

        Good to know those who could do something about it have made such massive progress in subsequent decades.

        Also do not hold your breath for pols of either side to move willingly on this, even those who stand on corners and cry for the poor, where the people can see them. Cutting forfeiture means they will have to come up with more money for police, state or feds, and they'd mucb rather use that to buy votes via circuses.

    2. Hey, the deputy is just showing off his critical theory math (and legal) skills.

  4. A New Mexico Thai has his money taken by Oklahoma Deputies in a Canadian County? Sounds like there might be some jurisdictional issues.

    1. Not at all. Where he lives and what his name is are not relevant variables. OK law is what matters here (and the US Constitution).

      1. Whoooooosh again

        1. News flash: Leftists have no sense of humor. Story at 11.

      2. You played T-ball as an adult, didn't you?

        1. Actually, she failed to make the team.

          1. Molly's not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

              1. That was sure something. Yikes.

      3. Not sure if you're serious...

  5. Cops that do this are highwaymen.

    I wonder if states like this would try to sue, well, someone, if banks set up billboards on the edge of the state warning about this, and offering to convert cash into cashiers checks?

    Or hell, maybe we should just run ads warning people that cops are fucking thieves and to never do this.

    Yes, people shouldn't have to work around the cops like that, but that's not the world we live in.

    1. Under a Trumptatorshit Dictatorshit, this whole thing would NEVER have happened!!!

      1. spastic gets flagged

    2. “No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law”

      What happened to the Fifth Amendment?

    3. Perhaps it’s just a corollary of inviting all the illegal aliens here - we pick up they’re corrupt policing in the process.

  6. The FBI should especially investigate this since it involves Oklahoma cops and a resident of New Mexico.

    1. No white rage involved, so FBI is useless here.

      1. What about John Doe #2?

      2. And according to progtards, Asians are worse than whites.

    2. What, didn't they get their cut?

  7. If a state has a law allowing the confiscation of money or property which is believed to a product of criminal activity that state should be required to deposit than money and cannot touch it until it has gone through court and that could only happen if the person who had the money has been convicted of the crime from which the money came from. If the money is held for over 30 days without action the state would be liable for an annual compounded monthly 10% or current interest rate which is higher. If held for a year then the interest rate goes to 20% starting back on the day it was sized. If held for more than 2 years the interest rate would double on the anniversary it was taken. If it cannot be proven that it is from criminal activity by the third anniversary the state would have to release the money plus all the interest plus any the defendant had do spend in getting it back.

    1. Wow. I lived in El Reno in Canadian County. It was actually pretty cool. Had a dispute with my wife's sister when said wife was dying over the legal status of a vehicle. Said vehicle was registered through the tribe and the sherif couldn't even run the plates! Also, a year before that, her sister tried to lock me out of the house and called the cops on me. Sheriff's Deputy showed up, looked at the address on my ID, and said I had every right to be in my residence, then passively watched as I kicked the door in. So I call bullshit about Canadian County being some hotspot of police tyranny.

      1. seems pretty irrelevant to the post you replied to

      2. We just said the cops steal peoples money. Tyranny is your words. Redneck.

  8. You read about about "civil forfeiture" at the whim of any officer who finds more cash in your car than would be spent on a trip to Burger King. You hear of court cases where grasping authority figures seek to "forfeit" a house of a car because of activities of a relative of the owner, or for misdemeanor offenses. You look up "civil forfeiture" and find that no conviction or even charges are required many times before Officer Neckvein can pocket your money or drive off in your car, and realize that to get your property back, you must "prove" the property's innocence (property doesn't have rights and proving a negative is an interesting exercise in futility). And you learn that if you spend $10,000 on attorney's fees to recover your forfeited $12,000 you go home with $2,000 dollars because the forfeiting agency (except in rare circumstances) is not responsible for your attorney fees that their bad actions cause you to incur.
    And then you hear on the 10 o'clock news of yet another "unspeakable action" with fatal or serious results, and you still wonder why they happen?

    1. Why they happen? Because they didn’t have money to fend the cops off with. So they get shot for sport. You think this is a civilized country son?

  9. Off Topic: i ran a search on Reason for articles about Biden's cognitive state since becoming President, but can't find anything. i know there's got to be gobs of them, so i must be using the wrong search words. Any tips?

    1. biden cognitive

      1. Take out the 'www.'
        Google search: biden cognitive

  10. Civil Asset Forfeiture is simply legalized theft.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.