6 ms·
> Having more than roughly $10,000 cash in the US is nearly illegal Where are you getting that from? [1] There is nothing even close to being illegal to posses
by gist 7y ago
> Having more than roughly $10,000 cash in the US is nearly illegal
Where are you getting that from? [1] There is nothing even close to being illegal to possess in the US any amount of cash. There are laws to prevent illegal activity and against structuring (attempting to deposit below some limit to avoid disclosure).
Now to what appears to be your point having $100,000 in cash in open display in your car when you are stopped by the police will definitely raise suspicions. But then again so will many other things that are not illegal but might raise suspicions depending on the context of where they appear. (Walk into a bank with a toy pistol vs. walk around your friends backyard with a toy pistol).
[1] And what is 'nearly illegal' is that like 'nearly pregnant' (the classical example actually 'pregnant' or 'not').
- throwaway2048 7y agoLook into civil forfeiture laws, cops will seize that amount of money if you have it, and it can be almost impossible to get it back.
- gist 7y agoVery generally you would need to be a suspect in a crime which is completely separate from having cash and not being a suspect.
- refurb 7y agoI get your point, but currently just the possession of a large quantity of cash is enough to be suspected of a crime. “Only criminals carry large quantities of cash”.
- astrange 7y agoIt's pretty easy to become a suspect for walking while black, smelling like marijuana, resisting arrest, driving suspiciously, having a dog respond to you…
- perl4ever 7y agoHas anyone ever just withdrawn cash from their bank account that was obviously from a legitimate source and had it seized by police and not been able to get it back? Because the way people talk about civil forfeiture is as though this happens all the time, but ostensibly there's not supposed to be a problem if the cash is traceable. Stories about civil forfeiture abuses that I've read don't delve into whether the victim actually was able to prove the source of the money in a normal way.
- caymanjim 7y agoIn a free country you shouldn't have to prove you didn't commit a crime. The burden is on the state to prove you did.
- scott_s 7y agoI think the civil forfeiture cases involve what sounds like a contradiction: people who are relatively poor with a large sum of cash. The problem is that this cash is essentially their entire savings. Which means their ability to fight the forfeiture is limited, and the arresting police can infer that. Rich people tend not to need to have even that amount of cash: they can take advantage of the normal banking system to transfer money. And if they were stopped, it's easy to infer that someone is at least rich enough to quickly hire good lawyers to fight the seizure. However, with that said, I think caymanjim was being intentionally unspecific to prove a point. It's not against the written laws to have large sums of cash. But if such cash represents most of your wealth, and you're transporting it across certain areas, you're at the mercy of various law enforcement who may overstep their actual authority.
- perl4ever 7y ago"The problem is that this cash is essentially their entire savings. Which means their ability to fight the forfeiture is limited" You're implying that people with reasonable documentation for the source of their cash can't just fill out some forms, but need to hire lawyers or something. Have you seen news articles or other sources describing such a situation?