sameech
VIP Member
- May 12, 2014
- 1,605
- 297
- 80
Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
They are keeping a percentage of these innocent people's money from what I understood, no?
80% of the cases were innocent people, lives that the gvt RUINED! This is too wide of a sweep, involving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too many innocent people....
and if the law is over $10000 you have to fill out extra paperwork, then WHY CAN THE BANKS report to the gvt deposits that are lower than that? Isn't that an invasion of privacy, doesn't that break the constitution in so so so so many ways?
This is NOT right, no matter what...it is not right.
No since the bank's duties as to privacy are statutory, not Constitutional. You assume the folks are all victims. I assume they were up to something particularly the Mexican restaurant that only accepted cash. That is a huge red flag to me that they were probably being looked at for tax evasion.
If you are a small business, it is very expensive to pay the credit card companies for the use of their cards, you have to pay them a percentage and invest in equipment/technology that you may not have if you are a new company....recently they have come up with Swipe gadgets that attach to your Smart Phone, but even that is an expense that you wouldn't have to pay if you did all cash...it is also time consuming and if someone uses a Credit Card fraudulently at your small business, the credit card company does not pay you, you are the one out of your item sold and out of the money they paid for it....
this Mexican restaurant may or may not have been trying to avoid taxes....BUT THAT IS NOT what this law is about, this law is SUPPOSE to be about illegal drug trafficking and laundering money, NOT about someone you think is avoiding taxes and allows the IRS to take the money from the 80% of them that are INNOCENT, only 1 in 5 have been guilty of anything and 4 out of the 5 were wrongly accused.
Using the back door of another LAW, that has nothing at all to do with tax evasion to take away their money is just not right.
The Banks are telling gvt, because the gvt wants this information, and this information involves the privacy of their customers, the individual citizen....this is a back door way, that breaks our right to privacy FROM THE GVT, and search seizure protections the constitution is suppose to give us.....
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Beyond that, that they only take cash and won't take checks raises red flags all over the place. Perhaps a lot of these people are innocent, but that they were not charged does not mean they were no committing a crime. Given the small number of people whose accounts were seized in relation to the large number of people reported, I suspect that there were other criteria used. Let's say a restaurant has $500K in cash moving through its account and the owner is reporting $25K income and things like that. And perhaps some of it is overreach, but trust me when I tell you that the USA PATRIOT Act has been used for far more intrusive expeditions into some people's financial records than these reports. This is an eye on a a small potato in comparison.
My bank makes you do the form if you deposit more than $3500 in cash (just not if you withdraw it) as a matter of policy BTW.