Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2001 | 4:33 a.m.
CARSON CITY, Nev. - Golf course developer and high-rolling gambler Billy Walters pressed Tuesday for changes in a law used by Las Vegas police to seize $2.8 million from him in an alleged money-laundering case.
Walters told the Senate Judiciary Committee he favors a pending bill, SB36, that would make it tougher for authorities to seize property - but added the measure wouldn't affect his case.
However, Walters' lawyer has said he'd take advantage of any changes in state law that might help his client get back the money seized in December 1996.
Walters said his big concern is accountability for what he described as a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department "slush fund" that receives forfeited funds.
Without accountability, he said there's no way to ensure the money is spent properly on crime-fighting programs or for uses such as officers' overtime, travel or entertainment.
Ben Graham of the Clark County district attorney's office said Walters' claims of a slush fund that could be misused were "totally false."
Deputy District Attorney Bernie Zadrowski added that the effect of passing SB36, sought by Judiciary Chairman Mark James, R-Las Vegas, "would be to benefit drug dealers and pimps" whose property is seized when they're arrested.
The comment provoked James, who said, "They're not a drug dealer or a pimp until proven guilty." James added that the potential for abuses under the existing law could "swallow up the Bill of Rights."
Graham said the standards for property seizures under existing Nevada law mirror those in most other states, and only a handful have laws that make it tougher for authorities to hold property pending the outcome of criminal cases.
The standard in current Nevada law for seizing someone's property requires authorities to show by "a preponderance of evidence" that property forfeiture is warranted. Under SB36, the new, higher standard would be "clear and convincing evidence."
James said Friday that he talked to Walters' lawyer, Rick Wright, about SB36 but said Wright wasn't the source of the bill. He said other lawyers have endorsed the concept of a higher standard, and he's had concerns about the forfeiture standards for years.
The legislator also questioned whether Walters' locked-up millions would be affected because SB36, if signed into law, would apply to future cases and not be retroactive.
Wright said he didn't know whether the bill could apply retroactively, but as Walters' lawyer he'd argue that it does - unless there was specific wording in the law saying otherwise. SB36 as introduced doesn't have a definite effective date.
Walters' money was seized in December 1996, and remains in an interest-bearing bank account pending resolution of the criminal case against him.
Prosecutors have contended Walters participated in a conspiracy to place illegal bets with illegal bookmakers in New York and then transport the winnings back to Nevada.
But three grand jury indictments against Walters have been thrown out. The state attorney general's office has appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court to reinstate the case.
archive
