Bill Overview
Title: To authorize the Attorney General to use forfeited property for remediation purposes when the offenses underlying the forfeitures have a substantial connection to the United States efforts to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Justice to retain or transfer certain forfeited property (i.e., property that is forfeited because the underlying offense has a substantial connection to U.S efforts to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine).
Sponsors: Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals and entities with property forfeited due to substantial connection to U.S efforts to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine
Estimated Size: 100
- The bill concerns forfeited property connected to efforts to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine.
- It is likely related to property originally owned by Russian nationals or entities with links to Russian aggression.
- Those impacted would primarily be owners of such property seized under these specific conditions.
- Property owners could include individuals, businesses, and possibly some organizations.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a very specific and small segment of the population, primarily those involved in activities connected to Russian aggression in Ukraine.
- Most people in the US will not be directly impacted by this policy, given its specific scope.
- The interviews include a mix of directly affected individuals and those indirectly impacted or not impacted at all.
- Given the budget constraint, the policy is unlikely to provide direct financial compensation to individuals but may involve asset allocation or liquidation.
- Many directly affected individuals might be foreign nationals or entities, so the effect on U.S. citizens is likely to be indirect or at a societal level.
Simulated Interviews
Investment Banker (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to target assets related to sanctioned individuals. Although it doesn't directly affect my personal life, it might impact my investment firm's dealings and profitability in emerging markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Real Estate Agent (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A few of my clients might be affected which could slow property sales, but I doubt it will have a big impact on my overall business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase demand for legal advice on compliance and asset recovery which would benefit my practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious about how the policy will handle digital assets tied to sanctions. It might affect future developments in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Oil and Gas Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've already adjusted our strategic priorities but losing any forfeited assets could affect our bottom line.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a strategic move to reinforce sanctions. Its effectiveness must be evaluated on a larger geopolitical scale rather than individual impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Journalist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is bound to stir up debates on property rights and international law, providing ample material for investigative reporting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I had some investments that could be indirectly influenced, but at this point, it does not change my lifestyle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Denver, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these spur interest in security tools for digital assets, potentially benefiting tech startups like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
University Professor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will provide valuable case studies for my students on the intersection of international law and geopolitical strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The extent of forfeited property and the connection to U.S. counter-aggression efforts will directly influence the cost estimates.
- Risks of international legal challenges concerning forfeitures could impact cost structure.
- Coordination with international bodies might be necessary for managing cross-border asset recovery processes.