5 ms·

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

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.
briandear 7y ago
A tangent, but why can’t a “poor” person with $10,000 use banks? I am unaware of any income requirement to open a bank account. In many states, even illegal aliens can’t open bank accounts. I’m not sure I understand why the poor can’t use banks. I was poor once with credit in the low 500s and I’ve always had bank accounts.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Why does not using a bank mean your money is fine to steal from you?
  - scott_s 7y ago
    I don't believe that is what briandear was trying to imply. I read it as an honest question to understand why people are unbanked or underbanked.
- scott_s 7y ago
  They can. Why they are less likely to is, I believe, an area of active study. A 2017 study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation cites the two main reasons as trust and fees (page 4): https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2017/2017execsumm.pdf https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2017/2017execsumm.pdf
- astrange 7y ago
  Most physical banks charge you fees for having a checking account, fees for overdrafting, etc. If you don't pay one of those you can be banned from banking by Chexsystems.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Do you really think most banks charge monthly fees for having a checking account? I just checked and the bank I had an account with for many years requires $50 deposited to open an account and no minimum balance or monthly fee, includes free checks and debit card. The credit union I use now has no minimum balance, no monthly fee, and no fee for writing checks. You have to deposit $1 for a share of the credit union, which you get back if you close your account. My impression is these days they are making over 2% on deposits absolutely risk free, so they better not charge anything.

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.

briandear 7y ago

A tangent, but why can’t a “poor” person with $10,000 use banks? I am unaware of any income requirement to open a bank account. In many states, even illegal aliens can’t open bank accounts. I’m not sure I understand why the poor can’t use banks. I was poor once with credit in the low 500s and I’ve always had bank accounts.

throwaway2048 7y ago
Why does not using a bank mean your money is fine to steal from you?
- scott_s 7y ago
  I don't believe that is what briandear was trying to imply. I read it as an honest question to understand why people are unbanked or underbanked.
scott_s 7y ago
They can. Why they are less likely to is, I believe, an area of active study. A 2017 study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation cites the two main reasons as trust and fees (page 4): https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2017/2017execsumm.pdf https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2017/2017execsumm.pdf
astrange 7y ago
Most physical banks charge you fees for having a checking account, fees for overdrafting, etc. If you don't pay one of those you can be banned from banking by Chexsystems.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Do you really think most banks charge monthly fees for having a checking account? I just checked and the bank I had an account with for many years requires $50 deposited to open an account and no minimum balance or monthly fee, includes free checks and debit card. The credit union I use now has no minimum balance, no monthly fee, and no fee for writing checks. You have to deposit $1 for a share of the credit union, which you get back if you close your account. My impression is these days they are making over 2% on deposits absolutely risk free, so they better not charge anything.