New Jersey Section 2C:66-2 – Application by Attorney General
Contents
Overview of New Jersey Section 2C:66-2 – Application by Attorney General
New Jersey Section 2C:66-2 is part of New Jersey’s anti-terrorism laws that allow the state to freeze assets related to terrorism. Specifically, it outlines the requirements for an application by the Attorney General to attach terrorist-related funds[1].
The application must contain:
- A statement of the approximate total funds or assets sought to be attached, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
- A statement that the entity whose funds or assets are sought to be attached is a suspected terrorist or supporter of terrorism. This statement should explain the basis for this suspicion.
- A statement that attaching these funds or assets is necessary because less restrictive means would be ineffective or inadequate.
The application must also include affidavits setting forth the facts supporting these statements.
Case Study: United States v. Arnaout
A good case study is United States v. Arnaout, which dealt with asset seizures under similar federal anti-terrorism laws.
Summary
Enaam Arnaout was a director of Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), an Islamic charity. After 9/11, the Treasury Department froze BIF’s assets, suspecting links to terrorism. Arnaout was charged with racketeering and defrauding donors by hiding BIF’s terrorist connections.
Asset Seizure
The asset seizure was justified with evidence of financial and logistical support to militant groups. Wire transfers, videos of fighters thanking BIF, and shared funding sources created probable cause.
Trial and Sentencing
Arnaout pleaded guilty to reduced charges of supplying funds to terrorists. He admitted using charity money to support fighters in Muslim conflicts. The court sentenced him to over 10 years in prison.
Implications
This case demonstrated that humanitarian aid groups can be fronts for funding terrorism. It also showed that asset seizures can extract guilty pleas by pressuring defendants. However, seizures must still meet constitutional standards[5].
Pros and Cons of Asset Forfeiture Laws
Asset forfeiture laws that allow terrorist funds to be frozen and seized certainly have benefits in disrupting financing of these groups. However, there are also some downsides and concerns to consider:
Pros
- Freeze assets before they can be used for attacks
- Pressure individuals to provide intelligence
- Deter donations to terrorist fronts
Cons
- Potential for overreach and abuse of civil liberties
- Lack of safeguards in some laws
- Disproportionate impact on marginalized communities
Overall these laws can be an important counterterrorism tool but must be checked against constitutional rights and implemented carefully to avoid targeting innocents.
Defenses and Challenges to Asset Seizures
There are a few ways those whose assets are seized under anti-terrorism laws can challenge the attachment:
- Contest basis for seizure – Argue there is no evidence funds are tied to terrorism. The standard of proof is generally lower than a criminal case though.
- Claim hardship – Assert the asset freeze is causing serious undue hardship, like inability to pay for basic living expenses. This can get funds released.
- Allege procedural defects – Attack the seizure by identifying defects like lack of notice or false statements in the Attorney General’s application.
- Challenge constitutionality – Claim the seizure violates constitutional rights, such as free speech or due process. This argument succeeded in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder.
Of course, the best defense is not having one’s assets seized in the first place. Proactive compliance programs can help charities and donors avoid running afoul of material support and terrorist financing laws.
Conclusion
New Jersey Section 2C:66-2 establishes requirements for the Attorney General to apply for seizure of terrorist-linked assets. This powerful tool must balance security imperatives with constitutional liberties. As the Arnaout case demonstrated, anti-terrorism laws significantly ramped up after 9/11. However, rights groups continue scrutinizing enforcement efforts that may go too far. With careful, judicious implementation, freezing terrorist funds can help prevent attacks and deliver justice to victims.