A court in Romania has rejected a request by influencer Andrew Tate to return assets that were seized during investigations into the case in which he is charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
And it was working. They weren't trying to prosecute him until he bragged about moving to Romania to avoid prosecution. He embarrassed the Romanian law enforcement, so they decided to just go after him.
I was going to say "influencer" is quite a soft term for "sex trafficker" but, when I ranked the terms, it turned out "influencer" is the more insulting one.
Youtube has no morals, no standards. It is a business, and their business is eyes. The more eyes, the more ads, the more revenue. Everything else is nuance.
Imma catch hate here, but I'm a woman, and I like the guy. I watch some of his stuff, though I don't dip into his lectures on religion. Just not for me.
My understanding (entirely mediated by the Behind the Bastards episodes about him, so take it with a grain of salt) is that he never posted directly to YT; everything of his up there was and continues to be reuploads from his followers. So, regrettably, even though Romania has thrown him into a hole in the earth, Tate-stans will continue to spread the bad word.
Hey, thanks for that! It makes me feel a bit better about it! I sometimes watch Behind the Bastards and haven’t disproven anything they claim, but I don’t always take the time to fact-check them, either.
BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — A court in Romania on Monday rejected a request by influencer Andrew Tate to return assets that were seized during investigations into the case in which he is charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
The decision comes nearly a year after Tate, his brother Tristan and two Romanian women were arrested near Bucharest.
After their arrest, Romanian authorities seized 15 luxury cars, 14 designer watches and cash in several currencies.
Romania’s anti-organized crime agency said at the time that the assets could be used to cover the expenses of the investigation and compensation for victims if authorities could prove they were gained through illicit activities.
Andrew Tate, who has amassed 8.4 million followers on the social media platform X, has repeatedly claimed that prosecutors have no evidence against him and that there is a political conspiracy to silence him.
He was previously banned from various prominent social media platforms for expressing misogynistic views and for hate speech.
The original article contains 312 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 46%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This cunt is the reason my girlfriend's ex literally tried to pimp her out to his "friends" and on a cam website. If I could lay my hands on either of them, I worry about what I'd do - although admittedly Mr Tate could very likely kick my arse.
Romanian authorities seized 15 luxury cars, 14 designer watches and cash in several currencies. The vehicles included a Rolls-Royce, a Ferrari, a Porsche, a BMW, an Aston Martin and a Mercedes-Benz. Authorities said the assets were worth an estimated 3.6 million euros ($3.9 million).
A trial date hasn’t been confirmed. The case is still being discussed in the preliminary chamber stages
I know people don't like Andrew Tate, but this seems kind of fucked. They're just keeping him locked up without a trial and taking his stuff? If this happened to a black man in the US people would be pissed.
He's free to move around the country, he hasn't even been on house arrest since August. Save your concern for the actual locked up people on shitty minor drug possession charges in the US.
I think freezing assets is a common practice when said assets may be put towards restitution for the victims if found guilty.
I have no idea how Romainia does it, or if they can be trusted to actually put the money towards the victims. But on paper, it seems like it could be for good reasons.
Or it could be for civil forfeiture kind of abuse of authority. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
What have you been smoking? This is completely normal practice everywhere AFAIK, if your wealth and assets were involved in a crime, or were gained from crime, they are 100% confiscated when judged guilty. If they aren't seized ASAP, there's a chance criminals can move it out of reach of authorities.
Regarding his possible innocence, I don't think you have actually read about the case. The raid on his properties was because the police got notice about an American woman who managed to get a message out about being kidnapped. This woman was found on the premises, and the prosecutor has no less than 7 victims to testify!
If he is not guilty, which is doubtful, he will get everything back.
He is on record lauding Romania for its corruption, citing it as a major reason for having moved there. Dunno what to tell to tell him. He is presently bitching about reaping the exact crop he sowed.
Happens in the US all the time, actually. Tate is charged with a crime, and in a position analogous to someone who's out on bail in the US. He's free atm, just not allowed to leave the country. His assets have been seized, which is something that also happens all the time in America (https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture). The difference is Tate has actually been charged with a crime and, afaik, his assets will be returned to him if he's found not guilty of the charges against him. In America, your assets can be seized without you ever actually being charged with a crime, and they're not returned to you unless you go to court to prove your innocence. There's a legal loophole where they declare that it's your stuff, not you, that is on trial and stuff does not have civil rights, so taking your stuff does not violate your right to due process and suspicion (not of any crime in particular, just generally seeming suspicious) allows for the presumption of guilt. The people who decide whether or not your stuff is innocent of a crime also get to keep 100% of it if they decide that it is not, the person whose stuff is seized doesn't have the right to counsel or even to know that there is a hearing taking place about seizing their stuff. Often times, they only find out that their stuff is on trial after the trial has completed, the stuff has been found "guilty" in absentia, and the police have come to steal it at gunpoint. I feel like it bears repeating that they often have no intention of accusing the owner of any crime, the decision as to whether to take the stuff is made by the people who get to keep the stuff, and that the matter is often already decided with no opportunity for appeal by the time the owner is made aware that any proceedings against them have begun. They often offer to return some of the assets in exchange for the owner's agreement to not pursue the case further, essentially paying you off with your own money and relying on the fact that proving the "innocence" of your stuff will be expensive and time consuming (https://www.newsweek.com/theft-another-name-its-time-fight-back-against-civil-forfeiture-opinion-1821368)
So yeah, actually things in the US are much worse than what's happening to Tate, and have been for some time. Google "civil asset forfeiture abuse" if you'd like to know more, but if you take only one thing with you from this discussion, let it be the fact that in 2014 the police stole more money than burglars, and they have taken more every year since 2004 (https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm)