- He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources.
That makes no sense. It's illegal to deposit your legal money in a pattern?
This vaguely reminds me of Civil Forfeiture where basically cops can take whatever the want on "suspicion"
Ugh I feel like I should be ruling this thread, but basically you can either : 1) not bitch about banks allowing companies to launder money that then funds "terrorist" organization, illegal arms dealing, drugs, etc or 2) Run the risk of some individuals getting caught in the monitoring net because their activities appear suspicious, even though they may be innocent. You can't have it both ways people. Either banks are responsible for the actions of the people who hold accounts with them (like money laundering) or, yes, sometimes someone is going to look like they are money laundering and get caught in the net. I'm not saying this person should be prosecuted for appearances, but frankly, since they can prove they weren't structuring the deposits deliberately to avoid AML laws/regulations, they should be fine. Achieving both things is not, as I know it, possible.
There's a difference in "some innocent individuals getting caught," and Executive agencies dragnetting innocent people, knowing they can't afford the suit. It's possible to still investigate suspicion and charge launderers, while preserving presumption of innocence. Perfectly? No. But there is a middle ground. This is not it. Though admittedly, the NYT is probably exaggerating for their story.this incentive has led to the creation of a law enforcement dragnet, with more than 100 multiagency task forces combing through bank reports, looking for accounts to seize.
Achieving both things is not, as I know it, possible.
To be honest, I was speaking about this solely from an "inside the bank" perspective, not considering the 100+ multiagency task forces. There are people who say the banking agency is overregulated. Those are mostly people who work in banks or for banks, like lobbyists, and complain about every new regulation that comes their way because to a bank, less regulation is good. It means lower overhead and lower oversight. There are people who say the banking agency is under regulated and/or that regulation is a good thing. I'm one of those. Of course, without regulations, I wouldn't have a job, so maybe I'm biased, but I'd prefer that there be oversight into banking activities. Clearly, what has happened to these consumers is wrong. I think it's funny, though, that the NYT title is about "law letting IRS seize money on suspicion" and in the article it states that: And to be fair? We don't search people's houses only after they've been proven guilty, or at least indicted for a crime. What the IRS is facing is that if people who are really money launderers get notified that they are being investigated, without the IRS seizing their money, the money launderers are just going to take all that money and get the fuck out. I'm sure there is some sort of middle ground between presumption of innocence and premature seizing of assets, but I'm pretty sure that middle ground is going to prevent justice when it comes to money launderers. If a money launderer has any whiff that the IRS or another agency is looking into their shiz, the smartest thing they can do is take the money out in cash and disappear. This is wrong - by which I mean morally wrong, not an incorrect statement of facts: The following is bullshit and ignorant people who don't know what they're talking about: (and it's worth noting that the woman contradicts herself in these statements, claiming not to know about the requirement, but also claiming to know that keeping deposits under a certain amount "reduces paperwork" - what the fuq you think that paperwork is for, honey? For fun? Banks don't do it for their health. If a bank is requiring paperwork, 9 out of 10 chances are it's for a regulatory agency of some sort) This bank teller is stupid and wrong. Don't ask tellers about how to avoid/be compliant with federal regulations. Tellers know how to do their job and hopefully stay in line with regs. The job of the teller does NOT require federal regulatory awareness and certainly not across the board. “She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’”On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice
Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.
Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement and that for decades, she thought she had been doing everyone a favor. “My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork,” she said. “I didn’t actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.”
he worried that when he deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money again. So he asked the bank teller what to do.
I'm also admittedly biased in the tyranny-versus-crime argument, against tyranny. The difference is, for a small business, seizing these amounts of money amounts to executing the business. We do refrain from executing people before they're convicted. There ought to be some process where the small business owner can quickly file to have the money returned as essential to operating the business, pending trial (similar to jail bond).We don't search people's houses only after they've been proven guilty
Hey, your suggestion is the closest I've heard to a reasonable solution so far. I don't have a reasonable solution, really. I also completely agree that it's wrong that federal agencies take a cut of all the money they seize (including money that isn't linked to proven money laundering). Like, I'm not saying shit doesn't stink - some of this is shit and it does stink. However, some of the article itself - or the people being quoted - is shit and that stinks as well.
I'm all for a smart regulatory climate. But I'm not for knee jerk regulation to appease people. I'd be okay with less regulation if it meant more money was flowing in to the entrepreneurs.There are people who say the banking agency is overregulated. Those are mostly people who work in banks or for banks, like lobbyists, and complain about every new regulation that comes their way because to a bank, less regulation is good. It means lower overhead and lower oversight.
There is another class of people that are annoyed by banking regulations and this is the entrepreneur. Government regulations can make the barrier to entry in certain industries next to impossible as it takes a banking relationship to start a business. However, some businesses have a very hard time securing these relationships because their industry is either heavily regulated by the SEC or there is such ambiguous rules/regs that banks will not partner with them.
This is a totally valid point that I don't/wouldn't have the perspective to consider, and I appreciate it. Every time I see the ABA come out against some new regulations I kind of roll my eyes. I sometimes feel like they fight everything just to fight everything.
Conversely, I would imagine that from their perspective sometimes it feels like the government regulates everything, just to regulate everything.
I don't know. As a banker, I'm supposed to be on the banks' side. The sad truth is that the banking industry exists to make a profit and attempts to make a profit however it can. Often, this leads to the banking industry making colossal oversteps and engaging in risky business (sans Tom Cruise) that does not benefit their consumers. Nowadays, I am aware of several problems ongoing in the banking industry involving taking advantage of consumers - the several posts I've made about the prison industry, AND payroll/payday cards being two I can come up with off the top of my head. Both of these, clearly, need to be regulated in my mind. The prison industry money system problems potentially violate the 8th Amendment from where I sit. In addition, the 14th - In addition, the ABA and several other banking lobbyists are actively fighting in order to overturn the "disparate impact" section of Fair Housing law. That's the part that basically states "If what you do adversely impacts classes of minorities, even though we can't prove you did it on purpose, that's illegal and you have to stop." That right there is one of the reasons I'm pretty sure the ABA doesn't have citizens' rights at the top of its list - or even in the middle. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
- text of 8thCourts have found that incarcerating people for debts they couldn’t afford to pay violates the 14th Amendment.
from
But that's not the case here. If you have a cash-heavy business, declaring it on your income taxes doesn't protect you against seizure from apparent structuring of deposits. In the last case mentioned, the cash was simply from cashed paychecks, which obviously had already been declared.
It is illegal to deliberately pattern your deposits in order to avoid law. It's not illegal to avoid a DUI checkpoint - but I have also known DUI checkpoints that station officers in nearby neighborhoods that drivers might use to turn around after sighting the checkpoint. Those officers will stop people driving into those neighborhoods and talk with them there. In my state, that's legal. (It is important to note that DUI law varies state-by-state. In PA you must notify drivers before a DUI checkpoint and give them an option to turn off. In my homestate there is no such law.)
I can see that, but the pattern could be a result of legal practices. Shooting first and asking questions later harms good people. The IRS audits very well. If they see a pattern that suggests illegal behavior, they should audit the entity, not seize their funds. I am sure other options could be devised as well.It is illegal to deliberately pattern your deposits in order to avoid law.