6 ms·

> He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal s

> He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources. I don't understand this. How can anyone know whether what they are doing is wrong unless those rules are built into the structure of the law and the infrastructure of banks? From how I read this, one government 'report' gets triggered if deposits are over 10,000$. Another government 'report' gets triggered if deposits are made for an indeterminate period of time under 10,000$. > Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. How can they assume this?

thelogos 12y ago
There's really no hard rule. It's based on the feeling of whoever is reviewing your account transactions. Even if you deposit $2-3k every month, your account could still be under suspicion.
CamperBob2 12y ago
They have more guns than we do. They can do pretty much whatever.
johngalt 12y ago
Bank employees are instructed to file reports on people who deposit funds in ways that appear to be avoiding reporting requirements. Even inquiring about limits can trigger one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report Also you've triggered a MIL report if you've ever used a money order or cashier's check for more than 3k. A lot of this stuff is old and they haven't adjusted the amounts.
maxerickson 12y ago
It isn't just the act of making deposits less than $10,000 that is structuring, as you quote, it's making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements. If you run a small business and make deposits of $5,000 because that's all you build up in a week, you have a pretty good chance of making the case that you are just doing your business. If you need $35,000 for some purpose and make 4 or 5 trips to the bank to get it, your explanation of why you needed to make 4 or 5 trips is sure to amuse the investigators.
- shtylman 12y ago
  It is none of their business why I needed my money or how many trips it took.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I understand what you are saying, but the law says different. My main aim with the comment was to point out the (apparent) subtlety, not to declare my views on the situation.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > If you need $35,000 for some purpose and make 4 or 5 trips to the bank to get it, your explanation of why you needed to make 4 or 5 trips is sure to amuse the investigators. Because walking with $35K in your pocket is simply stupid? Taking multiple trips would make the risk of being robbed at all go up but the amount taken could never be more than whatever fraction of $35K you decided to walk around with. Anything over $5000 is madness. once in my life I walked around with in excess of $10K on my person and I felt decidedly funny even though nobody could have seen the difference between the skinny kid in jeans with and without that kind of money on him. Never been more nervous in my life on the street, it was as if there was a huge red light on my forehead spelling out 'target'. I could totally understand why someone would not withdraw $35K all at once but rather make multiple trips with much smaller amounts. My bank seems to agree with this principle because it is impossible to transfer more then 20K in one go even from my own account to one of their internal accounts.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I wonder if the 20k is due to a similar reporting requirement? Is that for all types of transactions, like if you had a business account and wanted to wire money to the U.S.?
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      I don't know, I've not yet had the need to wire such large amounts outbound. It might be a limit tied to my checking account or a more general limit. (I was paying off a mortgage so I ended up doing a whole pile of 20K transactions just to get around the block.)
joesmo 12y ago
> How can they assume this? Because they don't have to prove anything to seize the money. You are assuming that you are dealing with a system based on rule of law when this is clearly not the case.
crazy1van 12y ago
> I don't understand this. How can anyone know whether what they are doing is wrong unless those rules are built into the structure of the law and the infrastructure of banks? Criminalizing secondary and tertiary acts related to a crime is a disturbing trend. There's an act that is broadly regarded as a crime -- in this case, tax evasion or money laundering. Well those crimes are hard to detect. So we create a new reporting requirements law. Well, that's easy to circumvent by moving money in smaller amounts. So we create a new law that makes it a crime to move money in smaller chunks if it is related to avoiding reporting requirements. This is problematic. It makes acts illegal that viewed in isolation are widely regarded as perfectly legal. Even worse, these secondary acts are commonly done legally by many citizens. What citizen doesn't move money around in small chunks? This gives a lot of discretion to the government to charge you with a crime. Afterall, your actions on their face are very similar to that of tax evaders. In fact, even my earlier example of money laundering is one of these secondary crimes because it is used to clean the money obtained through illegal activity.
arh68 12y ago
The law is a tool used against the population. Your right to make cash deposits counts for nothing in light of the State's right to fuck anyone they think might be criminal. False positives don't matter. They just create more work, and grow the department. You'd think they'd have more reliable tools but this is their bread and butter.

thelogos 12y ago

There's really no hard rule. It's based on the feeling of whoever is reviewing your account transactions. Even if you deposit $2-3k every month, your account could still be under suspicion.

CamperBob2 12y ago

They have more guns than we do. They can do pretty much whatever.

johngalt 12y ago

Bank employees are instructed to file reports on people who deposit funds in ways that appear to be avoiding reporting requirements. Even inquiring about limits can trigger one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report Also you've triggered a MIL report if you've ever used a money order or cashier's check for more than 3k. A lot of this stuff is old and they haven't adjusted the amounts.

maxerickson 12y ago

It isn't just the act of making deposits less than $10,000 that is structuring, as you quote, it's making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements. If you run a small business and make deposits of $5,000 because that's all you build up in a week, you have a pretty good chance of making the case that you are just doing your business. If you need $35,000 for some purpose and make 4 or 5 trips to the bank to get it, your explanation of why you needed to make 4 or 5 trips is sure to amuse the investigators.

shtylman 12y ago
It is none of their business why I needed my money or how many trips it took.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but the law says different. My main aim with the comment was to point out the (apparent) subtlety, not to declare my views on the situation.
jacquesm 12y ago
> If you need $35,000 for some purpose and make 4 or 5 trips to the bank to get it, your explanation of why you needed to make 4 or 5 trips is sure to amuse the investigators. Because walking with $35K in your pocket is simply stupid? Taking multiple trips would make the risk of being robbed at all go up but the amount taken could never be more than whatever fraction of $35K you decided to walk around with. Anything over $5000 is madness. once in my life I walked around with in excess of $10K on my person and I felt decidedly funny even though nobody could have seen the difference between the skinny kid in jeans with and without that kind of money on him. Never been more nervous in my life on the street, it was as if there was a huge red light on my forehead spelling out 'target'. I could totally understand why someone would not withdraw $35K all at once but rather make multiple trips with much smaller amounts. My bank seems to agree with this principle because it is impossible to transfer more then 20K in one go even from my own account to one of their internal accounts.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I wonder if the 20k is due to a similar reporting requirement? Is that for all types of transactions, like if you had a business account and wanted to wire money to the U.S.?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    I don't know, I've not yet had the need to wire such large amounts outbound. It might be a limit tied to my checking account or a more general limit. (I was paying off a mortgage so I ended up doing a whole pile of 20K transactions just to get around the block.)

joesmo 12y ago

> How can they assume this? Because they don't have to prove anything to seize the money. You are assuming that you are dealing with a system based on rule of law when this is clearly not the case.

crazy1van 12y ago

> I don't understand this. How can anyone know whether what they are doing is wrong unless those rules are built into the structure of the law and the infrastructure of banks? Criminalizing secondary and tertiary acts related to a crime is a disturbing trend. There's an act that is broadly regarded as a crime -- in this case, tax evasion or money laundering. Well those crimes are hard to detect. So we create a new reporting requirements law. Well, that's easy to circumvent by moving money in smaller amounts. So we create a new law that makes it a crime to move money in smaller chunks if it is related to avoiding reporting requirements. This is problematic. It makes acts illegal that viewed in isolation are widely regarded as perfectly legal. Even worse, these secondary acts are commonly done legally by many citizens. What citizen doesn't move money around in small chunks? This gives a lot of discretion to the government to charge you with a crime. Afterall, your actions on their face are very similar to that of tax evaders. In fact, even my earlier example of money laundering is one of these secondary crimes because it is used to clean the money obtained through illegal activity.

arh68 12y ago

The law is a tool used against the population. Your right to make cash deposits counts for nothing in light of the State's right to fuck anyone they think might be criminal. False positives don't matter. They just create more work, and grow the department. You'd think they'd have more reliable tools but this is their bread and butter.