5 ms·

Don't worry, Politifact looked into this, and it isn't possible for the federal government to be seizing things from safe deposit boxes, because that would requ

Don't worry, Politifact looked into this, and it isn't possible for the federal government to be seizing things from safe deposit boxes, because that would require a search warrant, which obviously isn't going to happen. Pants on fire. Various chain emails over the past seven years have warned readers about the possibility of Homeland Security seizing items like gold, silver and guns from their safe deposit boxes at the bank. This isn’t possible without first obtaining a search warrant, since those boxes are private property. And banking officials told us random seizures just aren’t happening. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jul/26/chain-email/homeland-security-can-seize-safe-deposit-boxes-wit/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jul/26/chain-emai...

lostcolony 5y ago
Did...did you read the article at all? "U.S. Private Vaults was indicted in February on charges of conspiring with unnamed customers to sell drugs, launder money and structure cash transactions to dodge government detection. No people were charged." Meaning that the private company offering these deposit boxes was the target; and then everyone who used them is collectively facing the government seizing it for an indictment completely unrelated to them.
- AdmiralAsshat 5y ago
  You may have missed the implicit "/s" from the parent's post.
  - javawizard 5y ago
    And that's why it needed an explicit "/s": without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it's impossible to create a parody of extreme views such that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied[0]. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
- nefitty 5y ago
  You're not supposed to question if someone read the article. You're gonna get in trouble with a concerned HN citizen
arenaninja 5y ago
The business in question is not a bank
daniel-thompson 5y ago
Not sure if parent is being sarcastic or what, but their Politifact link says that _warrantless_ search and seizure is not allowed - which is correct - but the article here clearly states that warrants were obtained before the search/seizure was conducted (although the agents apparently exceeded the parameters of those warrants, which is a different issue).
- infogulch 5y ago
  I feel like "exceeding the parameters of the search warrant" is the same thing as a warrantless search.
  - trhway 5y ago
    [IANAL] i think there is the "in plain view" exception. So, if say the box accidentally fell and opened (or it made sound like there is a ton of illegal cash inside), its content becomes fair game. Without observers the police can open and close a lot of boxes and declare the accident only on the ones which have interesting content. >The FBI also said a dog had smelled unspecified drugs on Ruiz’s cash. that works too. Especially given that most, or something like this, cash in US has traces of drugs on it.
    - jasonjayr 5y ago
      If you see a pile of cash, in a bank, in a safe deposit box that's not the one you're authorized to be in, how can you tell it's illegal?
      - trhway 5y ago
        My understanding that in US any significant amount of cash is illegal until proven otherwise - i.e. the cash itself is basically "probable cause", and there is no effective legal machinery to prevent an immediate seizure of the cash by law enforcement, and the only way to get it back is to prove its legality.
- klyrs 5y ago
peteradio 5y ago
You know whats great about that leg work the Politifact folks have done here? Anyone who comes forward with statements to the contrary can easily be identified as liars which completely alleviates our already clogged justice system to pursue more important mandates. Thanks Politifact!
orhmeh09 5y ago
Banking officials promised us this doesn’t happen.
sk2020 5y ago
If Politifact says so, then, brother, you can take that to the bank (but not the safe deposit box).
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Never believe anything entirely but compared to say Sean Hannity, newsmax, or Infowars, which is where a lot of Republicans get their news from these days, they're practically 99% solid.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
I honestly don't understand why folks post a limited quote from a source, with an obvious implication (in this case, that Politifact was "wrong" in their analysis of the claim), but then when you go to the linked source it completely discredits the implication you are trying to make. That is, Politifact was replying to a specific chain email that US Dept of Homeland Security had made it a written policy that they could seize any safe-deposit boxes at will. This is clearly false, and Politifact's analysis is correct. In this specific case, the government did get a warrant, and from what is being reported it does look like they exceeded the boundaries of that warrant. That said, there is a far cry from "individual raid, for which there is an underlying warrant, exceeds the boundaries of that warrant" and "DHS has said they can confiscate any safe-deposit box at will." The more important issue is that HN should be a place where I come to the comments to learn more about some of the underlying circumstances of a story (and I usually do), not a place where a low effort comment is made with the deliberate intention to obfuscate. Please leave that shit on Twitter.
- kbenson 5y ago
  Not only that, I don't think this was a bank, but instead a private holding company which allowed safe deposit boxes to be anonymous. What a bank reports as common with regard to seizures and what businesses like these report as common might be entirely different.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Not sure the reason for the downvotes, you are exactly correct. Banks have specific KYC (know your customer) and AML (anti money laundering) requirements that apply even in the case of a safety deposit box. In fact, the business in this article was specifically targeted by the Feds because he was advertising anonymous storage. Again, I'm in no way absolving the FBI for what they did in this case, and I think civil asset forfeiture is just official theft in many instances, but just highlighting that there is a mountain of difference between what Politifact was originally responding to with respect to "DHS will seize your bank safety deposit box at will" and what happened with this shady outfit.
- 5y ago

lostcolony 5y ago

Did...did you read the article at all? "U.S. Private Vaults was indicted in February on charges of conspiring with unnamed customers to sell drugs, launder money and structure cash transactions to dodge government detection. No people were charged." Meaning that the private company offering these deposit boxes was the target; and then everyone who used them is collectively facing the government seizing it for an indictment completely unrelated to them.

AdmiralAsshat 5y ago
You may have missed the implicit "/s" from the parent's post.
- javawizard 5y ago
  And that's why it needed an explicit "/s": without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it's impossible to create a parody of extreme views such that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied[0]. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
nefitty 5y ago
You're not supposed to question if someone read the article. You're gonna get in trouble with a concerned HN citizen

arenaninja 5y ago

The business in question is not a bank

daniel-thompson 5y ago

Not sure if parent is being sarcastic or what, but their Politifact link says that _warrantless_ search and seizure is not allowed - which is correct - but the article here clearly states that warrants were obtained before the search/seizure was conducted (although the agents apparently exceeded the parameters of those warrants, which is a different issue).

infogulch 5y ago
I feel like "exceeding the parameters of the search warrant" is the same thing as a warrantless search.
- trhway 5y ago
  [IANAL] i think there is the "in plain view" exception. So, if say the box accidentally fell and opened (or it made sound like there is a ton of illegal cash inside), its content becomes fair game. Without observers the police can open and close a lot of boxes and declare the accident only on the ones which have interesting content. >The FBI also said a dog had smelled unspecified drugs on Ruiz’s cash. that works too. Especially given that most, or something like this, cash in US has traces of drugs on it.
  - jasonjayr 5y ago
    If you see a pile of cash, in a bank, in a safe deposit box that's not the one you're authorized to be in, how can you tell it's illegal?
    - trhway 5y ago
      My understanding that in US any significant amount of cash is illegal until proven otherwise - i.e. the cash itself is basically "probable cause", and there is no effective legal machinery to prevent an immediate seizure of the cash by law enforcement, and the only way to get it back is to prove its legality.
klyrs 5y ago

peteradio 5y ago

You know whats great about that leg work the Politifact folks have done here? Anyone who comes forward with statements to the contrary can easily be identified as liars which completely alleviates our already clogged justice system to pursue more important mandates. Thanks Politifact!

orhmeh09 5y ago

Banking officials promised us this doesn’t happen.

sk2020 5y ago

If Politifact says so, then, brother, you can take that to the bank (but not the safe deposit box).

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Never believe anything entirely but compared to say Sean Hannity, newsmax, or Infowars, which is where a lot of Republicans get their news from these days, they're practically 99% solid.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

I honestly don't understand why folks post a limited quote from a source, with an obvious implication (in this case, that Politifact was "wrong" in their analysis of the claim), but then when you go to the linked source it completely discredits the implication you are trying to make. That is, Politifact was replying to a specific chain email that US Dept of Homeland Security had made it a written policy that they could seize any safe-deposit boxes at will. This is clearly false, and Politifact's analysis is correct. In this specific case, the government did get a warrant, and from what is being reported it does look like they exceeded the boundaries of that warrant. That said, there is a far cry from "individual raid, for which there is an underlying warrant, exceeds the boundaries of that warrant" and "DHS has said they can confiscate any safe-deposit box at will." The more important issue is that HN should be a place where I come to the comments to learn more about some of the underlying circumstances of a story (and I usually do), not a place where a low effort comment is made with the deliberate intention to obfuscate. Please leave that shit on Twitter.

kbenson 5y ago
Not only that, I don't think this was a bank, but instead a private holding company which allowed safe deposit boxes to be anonymous. What a bank reports as common with regard to seizures and what businesses like these report as common might be entirely different.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Not sure the reason for the downvotes, you are exactly correct. Banks have specific KYC (know your customer) and AML (anti money laundering) requirements that apply even in the case of a safety deposit box. In fact, the business in this article was specifically targeted by the Feds because he was advertising anonymous storage. Again, I'm in no way absolving the FBI for what they did in this case, and I think civil asset forfeiture is just official theft in many instances, but just highlighting that there is a mountain of difference between what Politifact was originally responding to with respect to "DHS will seize your bank safety deposit box at will" and what happened with this shady outfit.
5y ago