Jump to content
tkdguy

In other news...

Recommended Posts

Yes; the lowering of the "the sound the alarm" threshold was ostensibly "to give more tools to the Dea and Homeland Security.". Funny, though, how my tax guy was also aware of it. 

 

For what it's worth, I used to move houses.  I could stay out for up to six weeks at a time on a job.  Considering the number "incidentals" that come up, unique to every job, and having to pay men who likely didn't have a local bank branch two states away from home, well-- I carried large amounts of cash on these trips.  Renting a welding crew isn't cheap, and I don't have time for an out of (didnt; sorry) town check to clear. 

 

Without derailing this thread any further, suffice it to say that the bank alert never bothered me until South Carolina started seizing cash simply because it existed.  Even then, not too worried (turn down SC work was an option,  but that was easily a full quarter of where my jobs came from (it's why I MO Ed there to start with). 

 

The combination of siezure and reduced "look over here" threshold, though: it was a bit unnerving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hermit said:

I believe part of it is that it got lower in the last 10 or so years? From 10000, to 5000

 

I lean with the Duke on this myself. However old, it's a bit disturbing that choosing to use 'good and legal' cash  falls more into the 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent' line of thought.

 

 

 

 

 

All I could find in thirty seconds of googling was that the Bank Secrecy Act was passed in 1970 and the Money Laundering Control Act was passed in 1986.  However, I dimly recall that there have been tweaks now and then to change mandatory reporting requirements and thresholds.  And this is merely federal law; state law and even bank policy might dictate their own requirements.  For example, one bank I have to deal with puts a three-day hold on deposits $5000 or over,* which I ran afoul of several times after the financial crisis when I was having serious cash flow problems.

 

I don't really have any problem with financial reporting, since it's one of the few ways we could actually catch organized crime and money laundering.  But civil forfeiture is evil and wrong.  It's the kind of thing that one expects from banana republic juntas, not a supposedly free society.  And when you combine it with transaction reporting... Duke was perfectly justified to do what he did.

 

 

* Unless I paid an expedite fee, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 But civil forfeiture is evil and wrong.  It's the kind of thing that one expects from banana republic juntas, not a supposedly free society.  And when you combine it with transaction reporting... Duke was perfectly justified to do what he did.

 

Agreed there. 

And the fact it has been used to especially target the Black Community in South Carolina is racist frosting on a big ole cake of injustice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Badger said:

I've got to ask: How does it target the black community more?

 

From the article on the link I first posted...

 

  Black men pay the price for this program. They represent 13 percent of the state's population. Yet 65 percent of all citizens targeted for civil forfeiture in the state are black males.



 

 If you are white, you are twice as likely to get your money back than if you are black.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An emergency order will prevent residents of a Melbourne apartment complex from returning to their homes after fire spread up the side of the high-rise building, which firefighters say has combustible cladding similar to the material used on London's Grenfell Tower."

 

Melbourne apartment tower fire fuelled by combustible cladding on Spencer St high-rise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 4:13 AM, Duke Bushido said:

That wonderful for you, Christopher.   Does tha coexist with warrantless siezure of any assets deemed appropriatable without proof of crime in your area

 

Because it feels an awful lot different when it does. 

The banks reporting large transactions is absolutely normal in every democracy on the planet.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 5:39 PM, Hermit said:

I believe part of it is that it got lower in the last 10 or so years? From 10000, to 5000

 

I lean with the Duke on this myself. However old, it's a bit disturbing that choosing to use 'good and legal' cash  falls more into the 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent' line of thought. 

Asset forfeiture in turn is absolutely broken, and almost unique to the USA. And maybe some 3rd world countries.

 

In germany we seize ill gotten gains the same way we seize evidence. Regulated on Federal level, rather then per state.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 1:53 AM, Cygnia said:

And that is one of the big downsides of Cryptocurrencies: Nobody that could restore/change your password if you forget it (or you die).

It was only a mater of time, before that shoe dropped.

In fact it already had dropped: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/bitcoin-lost-newport-landfill

 

Granted it was propably gross neglegience on the Founder/Worker part. You do not store such a importnat piece of information with only a single person. That is just basic sanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The geomagnetic poles have been shifting quickly over the last 40 years or so

 

In the box at upper left, select "Modeled Historical Track of Poles" and "Observed Pole Locations"; in the box at upper right, check out both the "Arctic" and "Antarctic" view tabs.

 

Maybe the next pole reversal is sooner to come than people had thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Holy magnets, Batman, someone is making all the compasses on Earth point to Siberia!"

 

"You're right, Robin, but who would be dastardly enough to do it?  And why?"

 

*cue intro*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I understand that. 

 

That is not what I asked you. 

 

In fairness, he does pretty much answer your question within that post, after his quoting Hermit, by Christopher saying:

Quote

Asset forfeiture in turn is absolutely broken, and almost unique to the USA. And maybe some 3rd world countries.

 

In germany we seize ill gotten gains the same way we seize evidence. Regulated on Federal level, rather then per state.

 


I for one agree that current-day civil asset forfeiture is completely broken and wrong, wrong, wrong, at least as it is now being used.  It's a case of a fairly decent concept being corrupted and abused due to greed on the part of those in power.  In other words, just another Wednesday.

 

[Edit to add:  By 'fairly decent concept' I mean that of using asset forfeiture against people convicted of crimes, or maybe even those charged with crimes if given proper oversight.  Not against people who aren't even being charged with a crime.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...