5 ms·

Look 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.

by throwaway2048 7y ago

gist 7y ago
Very 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  It'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 ago
Has anyone ever just withdrawn cash from their bank account that was obviously from a legitimate source and had it seized by police and not been able to get it back?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 ago
  In 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 ago
  I 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?
    - scott_s 7y ago
      I think the problem is that poor people transferring money typically don't have such documentation on them. (As was the case in the situations I just googled, which are easy to find. For example: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/civil-forfeiture-charles-clarke. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/civil-forfeiture-charl...) Most such seizures are also tied up with "suspicion" of drug trafficking, which means it's no longer a matter of proving the money is yours. You must now prove the money is not involved in your supposed drug trafficking.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        That article seems fairly clear that he didn't just withdraw money from a bank account, which is the situation I specifically mentioned. I'm aware of stories like this, and I've read them before, but I wasn't asking for more. I used to donate to the IJ, in fact.

Look 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 ago

Very 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 ago
I 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 ago
It'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 ago

Has 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 ago
In 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 ago
I 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?
  - scott_s 7y ago
    I think the problem is that poor people transferring money typically don't have such documentation on them. (As was the case in the situations I just googled, which are easy to find. For example: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/civil-forfeiture-charles-clarke. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/civil-forfeiture-charl...) Most such seizures are also tied up with "suspicion" of drug trafficking, which means it's no longer a matter of proving the money is yours. You must now prove the money is not involved in your supposed drug trafficking.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      That article seems fairly clear that he didn't just withdraw money from a bank account, which is the situation I specifically mentioned. I'm aware of stories like this, and I've read them before, but I wasn't asking for more. I used to donate to the IJ, in fact.