So How is the U.S. Seizing the SuperYachts and Horses Going?
It’s not cheap maintaining all of the assets the government siezes, especially those super yachts Biden lifted in his moment of pique with Russia.
-
Billionaire Viktor Vekselberg’s Tango was impounded.
-
Cost of maintaining the vessel could exceed $9 million a year
Now comes the mundane — and somewhat awkward — part of confiscating Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg’s $95 million vessel: paying for yacht maintenance
It’s not just the cost of maintenance. The U.S. is spending millions of dollars trying to confiscate assets. It turns out other governments are not always willing to just hand over the boats. As it turns out, whose boats they take is questionable at best. Just how does one prove they are a buddy of Putin.
Here is a story out of Great Britain recently.
Authorities initially seized the horse, called Lex, after its owner, the Atlanta accountant Jack Fisher, was indicted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in connection with tax fraud worth $1.3 billion along with four other individuals.
Bloomberg reported that federal agents soon realized it would cost between $45,000 to $50,000 a year to feed and care for Lex, excluding medical costs.
The horse’s value had dropped sharply, with an examination determining it to be worth $145,000, according to the report.
The US Attorney’s Office in Atlanta then agreed to return the horse to Christina for $25,000, on the understanding that they could collect more if her father was convicted.
The US is facing huge costs to maintain assets such as superyachts seized from Russian oligarchs, according to US national security adviser Jake Sullivan.
“I know. It’s so ridiculous, but you know what the craziest thing is? When we seize one, we have to pay for upkeep,” Sullivan says in reply. “The federal government pays for upkeep because under the kind of forfeiture rubric, so like some people are basically being paid to maintain Russian superyachts on behalf of the United States government.”
The US Marshals Service, which takes control of seized property, has a network of private contractors that often do the day-to-day maintenance. Seized assets are often stored to make that work easier, with cars placed in specialized lots or boats put in dry docks.
Source: https://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2022/06/21/so-how-is-the-u-s-seizing-the-superyachts-and-horses-going/
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
I still can’t figure out what gives the US the right to confiscate the property of a citizen from another country. Making up laws that say you can do that. Does NOT make it right…
Yeah, this situation is certainly ‘uncharted waters’ (pun intended) as far as history goes. Should be interesting Court Cases to follow down the road. I suppose the seizures are backed up by supportive evidence of crimes committed by the owners of said assets. Time will tell . . . or not.
This sets the right for other countries to seize our stuff… where does this end with this precedent?