Why is transporting more than $10,000 cash illegal?

[TheGreatGatsby]

It is not illegal to "transport" more than $10,000 in cash. The law is that cash transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the federal government by the bank.

But police can and do seize large amounts of cash via civil forfeiture. If you happen to get pulled over with a large amount of cash they'll assume (or pretend) it's drug related.

Which is not really probable cause; but The Constitution is a face value document in this country.

Oblama changed the unconstitutional forfeiture law that Reagan implemented...

You'd have to explain that. I'm not sure what change you speak of....

 

[Clementine]

this shows ya how sick our government really is...freedom and privacy be damned.....of course Big G wants a cashless society...

someone asked why would anyone use cash instead of a bank card...just wait until we have bank closures and a 'bail-in' like Greece and Cyprus....

Exactly. I've known people over the years who didn't trust banks and refused to put money in them. Thing is, it should be up to the individual to handle their own money as they see fit.

Government should not be able to confiscate anything from a person until they've been charged and convicted of a crime that got them the money. The police and feds are seizing money and property left and right without having to prove any wrong doing by the person. No accusations are even made, just a law that says they can take money with no investigation. Of course, some local authorities, often together with feds, have taken full advantage of this and most people never get their money or property back no matter how innocent they are. Those that do fight and win only get some of their money back.

Why it is government's business that some people carry cash? If a person is a drug dealer, then arrest them and charge them with a crime and if they are guilty then take everything, but treating average citizens like crooks just makes us realize that the real crooks are politicians who create such laws.

Even those who aren't "caught" carrying their own, legally earned cash on them are robbed because of the amount of deposits they make. The banks have to report deposits over $10,000. Then lawmakers saw a way to confiscate more and they now seize assets of those making less than $10,000 in deposits and they claim the people are just trying to get around the $10,000 limit. It just means that they will get you no matter what you do. If government wants to destroy you, they will do it and you have no recourse. While you might get some of your money back (never all of it), you are likely to lose your home, your business and suffer many hardships for no reason.

I am waiting to see if we have any congress critters, on either side of the aisle, ready to stop this infringement on our rights.

 

[HenryBHough]

I love that regulation!

When I have a problem with any bank screwing up one of my accounts I just go in and withdraw $10,000.01 in cash and, ten minutes later re-deposit it in a different account.

Bank manager spends hours on paperwork!

Sometimes they learn not to make the same mistake a second time.

But not always.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is it legal to carry $10000 worth of firearms?

 

[amrchaos]

It is not illegal to "transport" more than $10,000 in cash. The law is that cash transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the federal government by the bank.

But police can and do seize large amounts of cash via civil forfeiture. If you happen to get pulled over with a large amount of cash they'll assume (or pretend) it's drug related.

Not entirely true. Holding large amounts of cash is prima facie evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.

Having 10k on hand is only evidence of holding 10k on hand. You(better yet, your property) is being convicted of a crime without proof of it.

Also, it does not have to be cash. Other types of property such as land, boats, cars, computers, etc can be seized under civil forfeiture.

This is sort of a two part question, why is transporting legal US tender illegal, or if not, require some sort of approval? Secondly, who sets the number at $10k? I remember that being the number as a kid 20 years ago from movies, but $10k 20 years ago is worth $16k now... it's not a terribly large amount of money any more.
Where did we get such a strange restriction?

It doesn't even have to be that much. Carrying a lot of cash gives police cause, under the current laws, to confiscate the money without even charging the person with a crime.

Never mind if you are a person who doesn't believe in banks or just won the cash at a casino. Police don't seem to care about any explanations as to why a person has cash. They just take it and it's up to the individual to hire a lawyer and try to get some of it back.

Banks have to report it if people deposit $10,000 or more. Then a new law allowed police to confiscate a person's bank account if they deposited less than $10,000 because they can claim the person is trying to get around the law by depositing less than $10,000. In other words, they want your money and they will take it. Some business owners have had their accounts seized after they made deposits of less than $10,000. One person ran a cash only business selling food. Perfectly legit, but lost everything anyway.

In many of these cases, the people can easily account for the money and there is nothing illegal. Of course, when government decides to make it a crime just to have the money, regardless of how legitimate it is, it allows police to take it without even accusing anyone of wrong doing, let alone actually charging them.

What this law does is give police authority to take anything from anyone for no reason at all.

this shows ya how sick our government really is...freedom and privacy be damned.....of course Big G wants a cashless society...

someone asked why would anyone use cash instead of a bank card...just wait until we have bank closures and a 'bail-in' like Greece and Cyprus....

You don't have to go that far. If you are used to buying things in the classifieds from other people, you know you can 'barter' them down with cash on hand versus waving a check.

You can buy more expensive items with less money whenever "OBO/ cash only" statement pops up.

So if you were going to buy a boat that cost 11.5k OBO, you are likely to buy it for 9 or 10k through bartering on the phone. The longer the item is advertised, the more likely you can get it less than offered.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is not illegal to "transport" more than $10,000 in cash. The law is that cash transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the federal government by the bank.

But police can and do seize large amounts of cash via civil forfeiture. If you happen to get pulled over with a large amount of cash they'll assume (or pretend) it's drug related.

Not entirely true. Holding large amounts of cash is prima facie evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.

Having 10k on hand is only evidence of holding 10k on hand. You(better yet, your property) is being convicted of a crime without proof of it.

A.

No, if you cannot show where the cash came from it will be forfeited as evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.
I didnt make up the law. And I dont support it. But those are the facts.

 

[amrchaos]

I know that some of you do not like liberal comedians, so I suggest t you to look for

civil forfeiture documentary for a more somber approach

 

[amrchaos]

It is not illegal to "transport" more than $10,000 in cash. The law is that cash transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the federal government by the bank.

But police can and do seize large amounts of cash via civil forfeiture. If you happen to get pulled over with a large amount of cash they'll assume (or pretend) it's drug related.

Not entirely true. Holding large amounts of cash is prima facie evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.

Having 10k on hand is only evidence of holding 10k on hand. You(better yet, your property) is being convicted of a crime without proof of it.

A.

No, if you cannot show where the cash came from it will be forfeited as evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.
I didnt make up the law. And I dont support it. But those are the facts.

Question: If you can beat the drug charge or tax evasion charge, do you get your money back?

Answer:Usually no. You have to sue to get your property back.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is not illegal to "transport" more than $10,000 in cash. The law is that cash transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the federal government by the bank.

But police can and do seize large amounts of cash via civil forfeiture. If you happen to get pulled over with a large amount of cash they'll assume (or pretend) it's drug related.

Not entirely true. Holding large amounts of cash is prima facie evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.

Having 10k on hand is only evidence of holding 10k on hand. You(better yet, your property) is being convicted of a crime without proof of it.

A.

No, if you cannot show where the cash came from it will be forfeited as evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.
I didnt make up the law. And I dont support it. But those are the facts.

Question: If you can beat the drug charge or tax evasion charge, do you get your money back?

Answer:Usually no. You have to sue to get your property back.

There is no drug charge or tax charge. BUt if you can show where the money came from they give it back.
But I agree civil forfeiture is a big problem.

 

[g5000]

It's all those law-and-order types who brought this about.

 

[hortysir]

It is not illegal to "transport" more than $10,000 in cash. The law is that cash transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the federal government by the bank.

But police can and do seize large amounts of cash via civil forfeiture. If you happen to get pulled over with a large amount of cash they'll assume (or pretend) it's drug related.

Not entirely true. Holding large amounts of cash is prima facie evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.

Having 10k on hand is only evidence of holding 10k on hand. You(better yet, your property) is being convicted of a crime without proof of it.

A.

No, if you cannot show where the cash came from it will be forfeited as evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.
I didnt make up the law. And I dont support it. But those are the facts.

Question: If you can beat the drug charge or tax evasion charge, do you get your money back?

Answer:Usually no. You have to sue to get your property back.

And it winds up costing you more than the 10k

 

[Clementine]

You don't have to go that far. If you are used to buying things in the classifieds from other people, you know you can 'barter' them down with cash on hand versus waving a check.

You can buy more expensive items with less money whenever "OBO/ cash only" statement pops up.

So if you were going to buy a boat that cost 11.5k OBO, you are likely to buy it for 9 or 10k through bartering on the phone. The longer the item is advertised, the more likely you can get it less than offered.

And a LOT of people do that, which means a lot of money out there for government and local officials to get their hands on.

Congress needs to revisit these laws and add a stipulation that before they can put their grubby hands on a person's property and money, the person must be charged and found guilty of a crime and that the money was made as a result of committing that crime.

 

[BluesLegend]

This law originally targeted organized crime and drug trafficking but as frequently happens the government has learned to abuse its increased power to harass and intimidate citizens, even extort money from law abiding businesses.

 

[mamooth]

Oblama changed the unconstitutional forfeiture law that Reagan implemented...

Link please
Thanks

It was more Holder than Obama, and it was more of a policy change than a change in law. But it was changed. Feds have dropped the "guilty until proven innocent" standard, and feds won't let the states use federal law to justify seizure. Unfortunately, most of the asset forfeiture is done by state and local governments and justified by state law, so the federal changes have little effect.

Holder announces new limits on civil asset forfeitures - The Washington Post

 

[Clementine]

This law originally targeted organized crime and drug trafficking but as frequently happens the government has learned to abuse its increased power to harass and intimidate citizens, even extort money from law abiding businesses.

That is why we should be concerned when they give themselves power in other areas. Government having the ability to take away everything you own without a trial is bad enough, but the president can have you killed without a trial. We are at the mercy of government and I don't feel good about having people I don't trust having so much power over me.

 

[my2¢]

Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously difficult and expensive, with costs sometimes exceeding the value of the property. With the total value of property seized increasing every year, calls for reform are growing louder, and CLRP is at the forefront of organizations seeking to rein in the practice.

The above was copied and pasted from the ACLU site: Asset Forfeiture Abuse American Civil Liberties Union

But it isn't only the ACLU that's in opposition, the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation also wish for reform.

Obama/Holder's actions: Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with local state police - The Washington Post

I recall a 60 Minutes story on this ages ago (20+ years?)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why would anyone want to carry that much in cash?

Off the top of my head, car auctions...cash is (still) king.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Is it legal to carry $10000 worth of firearms?

Sure.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why in the world would someone want to carry 10,000 dollars in cash instead of using a bank card? Unless it's dirty money or for some ill purpose.

An assumption on your part.

WTF do you care if a person wants to carry cash?

 

[Redfish]

It is not illegal to "transport" more than $10,000 in cash. The law is that cash transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the federal government by the bank.

But police can and do seize large amounts of cash via civil forfeiture. If you happen to get pulled over with a large amount of cash they'll assume (or pretend) it's drug related.

Not entirely true. Holding large amounts of cash is prima facie evidence of either drug dealing or tax evasion.

no its not. many legal businesses deal mostly in cash. having cash is evidence of nothing more than having cash.

you disappoint me, rabbi.