Feds deny life insurance payout to mother of San Bernardino shooter

[Text Drivers are Killers]

What possible legal justification can the feds have for this.? Esp since the shooter was never actually found guilty of this crime.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sa...ily-san-bernardino-shooter-seize-life-n583781

june 1 2016 Federal prosecutors on Tuesday filed a lawsuit that would allow them to seize the proceeds of life insurance policies held by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

The two policies, owned by Syed Rizwan Farook, were worth a total of $275,000 and listed Farook's mother, Rafia Farook, as the beneficiary.

Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, died in a shootout with law enforcement after the Dec. 2, 2015, attack at the Inland Resource Center that killed 14 people.

One policy, worth $25,000, was taken out in 2012, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office announcing the civil asset forfeiture suit. The other, for $250,000, was obtained in 2013.

 

[Seahawk]

Seriously, you can't understand why?

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

 

[SmarterthanYou]

government greed and power

 

[Phantasmal]

You all are idiots

 

[Seahawk]

You all are idiots

What did I say?

And good morning sunshine.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Seriously, you can't understand why?

enlighten us

 

[Seahawk]

enlighten us

Their deaths were a result of criminal action, I'm surprised they are even getting a payout from the insurance company, most have clauses against that.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Their deaths were a result of criminal action, I'm surprised they are even getting a payout from the insurance company, most have clauses against that.

if there is no clause involved in this particular policy, what right do the feds have to ask for this? who fucking cares that it was a criminal act. THEY aren't profiting off of it

 

[Phantasmal]

I am surprised the insurance companies are paying out on these policies.

 

[Seahawk]

if there is no clause involved in this particular policy, what right do the feds have to ask for this? who fucking cares that it was a criminal act. THEY aren't profiting off of it

I'm guessing maybe for the victims, not sure though.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

 

[Celticguy]

If it's not excluded in the policy, and that is not common, they pay. There could be a hold if it's within 2 years of issue (think suicide clauses).
I guess the feds are gloming on asset seizure ala drug trade have to look that up.

 

[Seahawk]

It says right in the link

Under federal law, assets derived from terrorism are subject to forfeiture. A federal judge must approve an application before the government can seize the money.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It says right in the link

Under federal law, assets derived from terrorism are subject to forfeiture. A federal judge must approve an application before the government can seize the money.

so the beneficiary was also involved in the act of terrorism?

 

[Celticguy]

so the beneficiary was also involved in the act of terrorism?

Yup. This money was not derived from terrorism.

 

[Seahawk]

so the beneficiary was also involved in the act of terrorism?

He was involved in terrorism and the proceeds are from his terrorist act because he was killed as a direct result of his terrorism.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

He was involved in terrorism and the proceeds are from his terrorist act because he was killed as a direct result of his terrorism.