4 ms·
Back in 1970 when these laws were written, 10,000 was worth abouy 65000 today. These laws need to be revised for inflation. The idea that someone needs to jus
by dade_ 8y ago
Back in 1970 when these laws were written, 10,000 was worth abouy 65000 today.
These laws need to be revised for inflation. The idea that someone needs to justify having 10K in cash or proof of where it came from is far too low today.
See also, bank secrecy act if your business operates in cash transactions.
Of all things, this is something Trump ahould take on.
- blitmap 8y agoThat is something I had not considered - good point!
- ssijak 8y agoWhy would anyone have to have proof of anything? Where is "innocent until proven guilty". If the government thinks that someone got their money from an illegal activity they should prove that, not the other way around.
- ed_balls 8y agop much every country imposes the obligation on you.
- whatshisface 8y agoThat's like saying crime is OK in a high-crime neighborhood - that governments commonly intrude on civil liberties, if anything, makes the idea more important. Indeed, if governments didn't tend to do it, it wouldn't be very important to try to get them to stop!
- ssijak 8y agoIn my country, you have to be criminally charged and on trial before the government can seize (until the trial is over if you are found innocent) the things related to the alleged criminal activity.
- ed_balls 8y agoI'm talking about "proof for the money". The burden is on you to prove to source, taxes etc.
- ssijak 8y agoThey can ask me for proof for tax purposes, but they can not TAKE THE MONEY AWAY on the spot. If I can not prove the source of the money, they can give me a fine after the process, without taking that money.
- barry-cotter 8y agoThe penalties have been adjusted for inflation. It’s not an accident, it’s malice.