THEY TOOK ALL OF HIS MONEY
TO PUT PRESSURE ON HIM.
NO SEIZURE ORDER.
NO CONVICTION.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
TAKING SOMEONE'S MONEY BEFORE A CONVICTION
IS AN EXTRAORDINARY STEP.
Only in very rare circumstances can the government seize someone’s money before they’ve even been convicted. It is most commonly associated with things like narcotics, when cash is taken during a drug bust.
Even then, they can’t just take whatever they want. There has to be legal authority to seize it, and the government has to identify the money it claims is connected to the crime.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.
THE FBI TRIED AND FAILED TO
LEGALLY SEIZE HIS ACCOUNTS.
Shortly after arresting Teddy on a criminal complaint, the FBI tried to get authority to seize his bank accounts.
There was a problem. The case was still being fought, and Teddy had accounts and businesses far beyond the transactions the government was accusing him of.
SO THEY FROZE THEM ILLEGALLY.
After Teddy was denied bond and was preparing to fight the case, his bank accounts became inaccessible.
According to Teddy's account, the FBI contacted the banks associated with him and told them the accounts were connected to suspected fraud. The banks froze the accounts.
NO CONVICTION.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
THEY TOOK CONTROL OF HIS MONEY TO PUT PRESSURE ON HIM.
Taking property before conviction is supposed to require legal process. Pretrial restraint can occur under specific forfeiture procedures, but it generally requires judicial authorization and a legally established connection between the property and the alleged offense. It is not permission to freeze everything a person owns simply because he has been accused.
HE COULDN'T EVEN PAY A LAWYER
TO DEFEND HIS INNOCENCE.
Teddy was actively trying to retain private counsel and was due to pay the lawyer's retainer. He sent someone to the bank to obtain the required cashier's check.
The accounts were frozen. Teddy was sitting in jail. The money he needed to defend himself was sitting in accounts he could no longer access.
HE COULDN'T WRITE THE RETAINER CHECK.
HE COULDN'T WALK INTO THE BANK.
HE COULDN'T USE HIS OWN ACCOUNTS TO HIRE THE LAWYER HE WAS TRYING TO RETAIN.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THEY AREN'T ALLOWED TO
TAKE YOUR MONEY WITHOUT LEGAL PROCESS.
Teddy's problem was brutally simple: his money was unavailable, but at that point he did not have a seizure order he could point to and ask the court to undo.
From jail, Teddy did what he could. He filed motions telling the court that he had no access to his money and could not hire the attorney he was trying to retain.
TEDDY SPENT HIS AVAILABLE MONEY
ON EVERYONE ELSE.
Like most people running businesses, Teddy had money and resources outside the frozen accounts that could be used in an emergency. At first, he still believed this would get corrected.
So he used what he could access to pay employees and subcontractors who were owed money. Then he told his wife and mother to use what remained to live on while he tried to get his accounts unlocked.
IN OCTOBER, AFTER PRESSURE FROM THE DEFENSE,
THE GOVERNMENT ADMITTED HIS ACCOUNTS WERE FROZEN.
In October, after pressure from the defense, the government admitted to the federal court that Fifth Third had already frozen bank accounts.
TEDDY KEPT SAYING THE SAME THING:
I CAN'T ACCESS MY MONEY.
Teddy raised the financial problem through the filings available to him from jail. He told the court that his accounts were frozen, that he could not access his funds, and that the freeze was preventing him from retaining counsel.
The relief he needed never came. The accounts remained unavailable.
THE ACCOUNTS
NEVER UNFROZE.
TEDDY LOSING EVERYTHING.