4 ms·

Cash transactions over 10k are also reported to FinCEN via Currency Transaction Reports [0] > Also, having $50k on you with a bank receipt is generally a non-i

Cash transactions over 10k are also reported to FinCEN via Currency Transaction Reports [0] > Also, having $50k on you with a bank receipt is generally a non-issue. You have personal experience? The whole issue of Asset Forfeiture surrounds non-drug-dealing persons regularly having their cash seized under the assumption that they must be drug dealers while skipping the inconvenient step of pressing charges. "A 2020 study found that the median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300."[2] [0] https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/CTRPamphlet.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/CTRPamphle... [1] https://www.wunc.org/news/2021-06-15/asset-forfeiture-creates-perverse-incentive-police-profit-north-carolina https://www.wunc.org/news/2021-06-15/asset-forfeiture-create... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

lazide 2y ago
You need to show the cash came from a legitimate source if you’re transporting it. (Not okay, but it is what it is) Coming directly out of a bank (and hence tracked by the gov’t already) is a legitimate source. If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.
- bigiain 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lazide 2y ago
    And plenty of attorneys would take a case like that on contingency if you would present even halfway decently in court, and win - and get you a nice payout on top of it. Since they can say ‘Your honor, the prosecution can not identify any articulable factual basis, or even concrete suspicion as to why they should have seized my clients money. The money my client just withdrew from the bank that he earned lawfully, paid taxes on, was held in a regulated institution, and that he intended to use for lawful purposes. In fact, as is clear from opposing councils arguments, they not only didn’t even attempt to investigate to discover if a lawful basis existed to seize my clients funds, they actively ignored documentation that my client attempted to provide them showing the funds were from a legal source. Additionally, it’s clear they have since been unable to identify any lawful reason besides a generic ‘my training and experience says this was okay’, and in fact are not even able to identify which parts of their training and experience support it, even with x months of time. This is in violation of the federal rules around these seizures (cut and paste the sections), and their own policies (cut-n-paste from their policy book). Additionally, that they persist in not only defending these tactics, but continuing to keep my law abiding clients funds, shows a complete and continuing disregard for the law, my clients rights as a law abiding citizen of this great nation, their own policies, and the integrity of this court. ’ If they still persisted (historically they haven’t, even in far more ambiguous cases), I can’t imagine a judge being unsympathetic to punitive damages (3x) on top of everything else. It wouldn’t be hard to make an argument that literal criminal gangs are less dangerous to society than a police agency acting that way in such a case.
    - bigiain 2y ago
      Sadly, as per the article in the submission: "In April, police inspectors at the Indianapolis FedEx distribution center seized a box containing nearly $43,000 in cash. Even though no criminal charges have been filed in connection with the package, it’s been in the government’s possession for about four months. " and "In court documents, the Marion County prosecutor’s office wrote that shipments of bulk cash are typically associated with criminal activity. Even though Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department dogs alerted handlers to the smell of drugs in the box, no contraband could be found once it was opened." It happens, and the cops just lie to courts, and they get away with it. They especially get away with it when they steal from the sorts of people who do not have easy access to lawyers, and who are not in a position to have tens of thousands of dollars tied up for months or years while cops lie to judges.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Uh, no. That is not at all addressing what I said at all. In my case, someone was there to ‘defend it’, and had the documentation I noted. In this case, none of that happened or was the case.
  - 1992spacemovie 2y ago
    [dead]
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  > If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement. This isn't true. You'll probably get the money back, but it will take a couple months and cost a couple thousand in attorney's fees (which the courts will not reimburse)
  - paranoidrobot 2y ago
    > You'll probably get the money back Unless you get a lot of press, and/or have someone like the Institute for Justice fighting on your behalf, that's not a given. There's a playbook that local/state and federal agencies have. If a local/state agency seizes your cash, then they can just kick it up to the feds. Then any suit you file will have to be against the federal government. This increases your costs and difficulty. The local/state agency is fine with this, because they have an agreement (see "Equitable Sharing"[1]) to get 80% of the money back. [1] https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/
  - lazide 2y ago
    Maybe, but they’d need a really high bar if you had the paperwork with you to not have to pay out. It’s true though that it would require some fighting. But that’s true of any cop misbehavior, unfortunately. Civil penalties for this behavior means if you prevail (and it’s an egregious case), you can more than make up for it. Many attorneys will take such cases on contingency, as the odds are pretty good. Here is the federal manual on asset seizure btw [https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-afmls/file/839521/dl https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-afmls/file/839521/...]
    - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
      > Many attorneys will take such cases on contingency, as the odds are pretty good. what this means is that the government steals your money and then the lawyer gets half of it if you win and get it back.
      - 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pests 2y ago
  The best trick is the court case will not be against you, it will be against the money itself, as in "State of Indiana vs. $50,000". Your money has no rights, so it gets no public defender nor any other rights. Sounds like a hassle.
giantg2 2y ago
For civil asset forfeiture the whole premise is that you can't prove the money is your's. If you have proof the money is yours and came from a bank, that invalidates the basis.
- behringer 2y ago
  Try again ;)
- opo 2y ago
  Just because you have proof the money is yours doesn't mean they won't take your money. >...On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings. Well they must really believe they have a strong case then, right? >...So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it. Nope, I guess they knew they didn't have a case. To recap: They engineer a fake reason for a traffic stop treating cars as a potential lottery ticket with a big payoff. They take the money even though they know they shouldn't. They circumvent Nevada law by handing the money to the DEA so they could get a kickback, hoping he won't be able to now afford a lawyer since they took his life savings. The minute he shows he has a powerful legal team looking into the case, they hand back the money. https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ >For civil asset forfeiture the whole premise is that you can't prove the money is your's. Also, one has to wonder why the basic principle of the state having to prove guilt needs to be upended with civil asset forfeiture. If you are alleged to have murdered someone you are assumed innocent, but for civil asset forfeiture you are assumed guilty?

lazide 2y ago

You need to show the cash came from a legitimate source if you’re transporting it. (Not okay, but it is what it is) Coming directly out of a bank (and hence tracked by the gov’t already) is a legitimate source. If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.

bigiain 2y ago
[flagged]
- lazide 2y ago
  And plenty of attorneys would take a case like that on contingency if you would present even halfway decently in court, and win - and get you a nice payout on top of it. Since they can say ‘Your honor, the prosecution can not identify any articulable factual basis, or even concrete suspicion as to why they should have seized my clients money. The money my client just withdrew from the bank that he earned lawfully, paid taxes on, was held in a regulated institution, and that he intended to use for lawful purposes. In fact, as is clear from opposing councils arguments, they not only didn’t even attempt to investigate to discover if a lawful basis existed to seize my clients funds, they actively ignored documentation that my client attempted to provide them showing the funds were from a legal source. Additionally, it’s clear they have since been unable to identify any lawful reason besides a generic ‘my training and experience says this was okay’, and in fact are not even able to identify which parts of their training and experience support it, even with x months of time. This is in violation of the federal rules around these seizures (cut and paste the sections), and their own policies (cut-n-paste from their policy book). Additionally, that they persist in not only defending these tactics, but continuing to keep my law abiding clients funds, shows a complete and continuing disregard for the law, my clients rights as a law abiding citizen of this great nation, their own policies, and the integrity of this court. ’ If they still persisted (historically they haven’t, even in far more ambiguous cases), I can’t imagine a judge being unsympathetic to punitive damages (3x) on top of everything else. It wouldn’t be hard to make an argument that literal criminal gangs are less dangerous to society than a police agency acting that way in such a case.
  - bigiain 2y ago
    Sadly, as per the article in the submission: "In April, police inspectors at the Indianapolis FedEx distribution center seized a box containing nearly $43,000 in cash. Even though no criminal charges have been filed in connection with the package, it’s been in the government’s possession for about four months. " and "In court documents, the Marion County prosecutor’s office wrote that shipments of bulk cash are typically associated with criminal activity. Even though Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department dogs alerted handlers to the smell of drugs in the box, no contraband could be found once it was opened." It happens, and the cops just lie to courts, and they get away with it. They especially get away with it when they steal from the sorts of people who do not have easy access to lawyers, and who are not in a position to have tens of thousands of dollars tied up for months or years while cops lie to judges.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Uh, no. That is not at all addressing what I said at all. In my case, someone was there to ‘defend it’, and had the documentation I noted. In this case, none of that happened or was the case.
- 1992spacemovie 2y ago
  [dead]
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
> If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement. This isn't true. You'll probably get the money back, but it will take a couple months and cost a couple thousand in attorney's fees (which the courts will not reimburse)
- paranoidrobot 2y ago
  > You'll probably get the money back Unless you get a lot of press, and/or have someone like the Institute for Justice fighting on your behalf, that's not a given. There's a playbook that local/state and federal agencies have. If a local/state agency seizes your cash, then they can just kick it up to the feds. Then any suit you file will have to be against the federal government. This increases your costs and difficulty. The local/state agency is fine with this, because they have an agreement (see "Equitable Sharing"[1]) to get 80% of the money back. [1] https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/
- lazide 2y ago
  Maybe, but they’d need a really high bar if you had the paperwork with you to not have to pay out. It’s true though that it would require some fighting. But that’s true of any cop misbehavior, unfortunately. Civil penalties for this behavior means if you prevail (and it’s an egregious case), you can more than make up for it. Many attorneys will take such cases on contingency, as the odds are pretty good. Here is the federal manual on asset seizure btw [https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-afmls/file/839521/dl https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-afmls/file/839521/...]
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    > Many attorneys will take such cases on contingency, as the odds are pretty good. what this means is that the government steals your money and then the lawyer gets half of it if you win and get it back.
    - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pests 2y ago
The best trick is the court case will not be against you, it will be against the money itself, as in "State of Indiana vs. $50,000". Your money has no rights, so it gets no public defender nor any other rights. Sounds like a hassle.

giantg2 2y ago

For civil asset forfeiture the whole premise is that you can't prove the money is your's. If you have proof the money is yours and came from a bank, that invalidates the basis.

behringer 2y ago
Try again ;)
opo 2y ago
Just because you have proof the money is yours doesn't mean they won't take your money. >...On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings. Well they must really believe they have a strong case then, right? >...So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it. Nope, I guess they knew they didn't have a case. To recap: They engineer a fake reason for a traffic stop treating cars as a potential lottery ticket with a big payoff. They take the money even though they know they shouldn't. They circumvent Nevada law by handing the money to the DEA so they could get a kickback, hoping he won't be able to now afford a lawyer since they took his life savings. The minute he shows he has a powerful legal team looking into the case, they hand back the money. https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ >For civil asset forfeiture the whole premise is that you can't prove the money is your's. Also, one has to wonder why the basic principle of the state having to prove guilt needs to be upended with civil asset forfeiture. If you are alleged to have murdered someone you are assumed innocent, but for civil asset forfeiture you are assumed guilty?