Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Post)   Some Guy: "I calculate that my cash-on-hand falls well below the $10,000 threshold." Border Gestapo: :: Clikka-clikka :: "Nope. Sorry, Citizen. We are, however, grateful for the much-needed boost to Stephen Harper's Sweater Vest Fund"   (news.nationalpost.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Bank of Canada, detector dog, exchange rates, borders, Pearson International Airport, Federal Court of Appeal  
•       •       •

14899 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 6:31 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-04 01:11:15 AM  
FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.
 
2013-04-04 02:27:16 AM  

Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.


It just keeps walking away from me!

Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.
 
2013-04-04 04:08:04 AM  

MadSkillz: Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.


Yeah.  Especially via international travel.  Doubly especially because, as far as I know, declaring that you have more than 10k in cash is f%$#ing easy as hell.  Yeah, they'll ask for some paperwork maybe, but it's not a ton.
 
2013-04-04 05:34:47 AM  
He should have done the sensible thing and just shoved it up his ass
 
2013-04-04 06:35:48 AM  
...mushroom business?!? LOL!!!
 
2013-04-04 06:37:51 AM  

filter: ...mushroom business?!? LOL!!!


Liberty caps are still mushrooms...
 
2013-04-04 06:40:11 AM  
Dumbass tag, not Stupid, subby.

/For you, too.
 
2013-04-04 06:40:46 AM  
And $20 is not "well below" the threshold.
 
2013-04-04 06:44:14 AM  
I remember a scene like this from the movie The Siege where they stopped a suspected terrorist at the border and find that he's carrying $20 less than maximum legal amount allowed in cash to be brought into the country and so Denzel takes a twenty out of his wallet, throws it onto the pile of cash and says something like "Well, he ain't under the limit now."

ahhh Denzel, you such a badass.
 
2013-04-04 06:48:48 AM  
I love how the outrageous becomes the new normal.

"If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about!"
 
2013-04-04 06:49:13 AM  
I love how they can arbitrarily decide the money you have is proceeds of a crime and just take it. And why is it only $10k and over can be the result of a crime? Maybe he was going to a casino.
 
2013-04-04 06:50:44 AM  
So he has a business there, so why not just open a bank account?

Just recently opened an overseas bank account that accepts foreign currency because I want to trade shares in their market and they have a better buy rate than locally, the bank was going to charge me $20NZD to send up to $60,000NZD in a single transaction and last I heard banks don't question the legitimacy of your deposits.

This just screams dodgy seeing as he calculated it perfectly, why not just take 9K? If there's considerably more to move then he still has to make more trips anyway.
 
2013-04-04 06:52:24 AM  

nmemkha: "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about!"



And by that logic, police officers who tape civilians without their consent all the time shouldn't be too concerned with being taped in return. But the really strange thing is, this doesn't seem to work in reverse.
 
2013-04-04 06:52:46 AM  

MadSkillz: Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.

It just keeps walking away from me!

Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.


I guess we are no longer innocent until proven guilty.  now we're guilty and are not permitted to prove our innocence.  I think I'll go wave my tiny flags now, and pretend I matter to the powers that rule our lives.
 
2013-04-04 06:55:11 AM  

Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.


i34.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-04 06:56:10 AM  

Weaver95: MadSkillz: Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.

It just keeps walking away from me!

Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.

I guess we are no longer innocent until proven guilty.  now we're guilty and are not permitted to prove our innocence.  I think I'll go wave my tiny flags now, and pretend I matter to the powers that rule our lives.


Except he was guilty and it was proven, he brought in more than $10,000 without declaring it. They didn't just look at the money and say it was over 10k, they calculated it to make sure.
 
2013-04-04 06:58:27 AM  

Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.


So: as long as you have one of these dogs around you can stop almost anyone over the age of 10 and search them?
 
2013-04-04 06:59:35 AM  
Why do stupid people always seem to have more money than I do?
 
2013-04-04 06:59:54 AM  

Weaver95: MadSkillz: Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.

It just keeps walking away from me!

Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.

I guess we are no longer innocent until proven guilty.  now we're guilty and are not permitted to prove our innocence.  I think I'll go wave my tiny flags now, and pretend I matter to the powers that rule our lives.


He did break the law though. He tried to move more than $10k across customs without declaring it. The penalty of breaking said law is seizure of the money. It's not like he didn't know about the law either, by his own admittance he was trying to carry just under the legal limit that necessitates declaration.

Whether he was doing something illegal out of country seems rather irrelevant because they aren't charging him with those crimes, just the one they know he committed.
 
2013-04-04 07:00:28 AM  
"In this case, Mr. Docherty's explanations were unverifiable and, as such, amounted to no explanation at all," the court ruled in dismissing his appeal.

i.imgur.com
.                                        Unavailable for comment.
 
2013-04-04 07:09:06 AM  
Not helping his case was the fact that Mr. Docherty had little in the way of business records to prove the origins of the cash.

The guy couldn't even prove his claim that the money came from a mushroom business or an inheritance as he claimed. This is why he tried to bring $20 under the limit across instead of declaring it. The idiot should have given himself more of a cushion, say $500, or something that a small daily fluctuation in the dollar wouldn't have pushed him over the limit. But if he had planned for that he would be smart enough to have a real business, and therefor have a legit $10k and would be able to declare it.
 
2013-04-04 07:09:10 AM  

bighairyguy: Why do stupid people always seem to have more money than I do?


They take bigger risks.

It's why Roman Polanski is a wanted child molester instead of a beloved director whose wife died in a most horrible way. It's because he dared to dream he could be a director while you were making sound financial decisions. It's also why he dared to dream he could corn hole a 14 year old and again dared to dream he could get away with it in France.

Well all of his dreams came true.
 
2013-04-04 07:10:49 AM  
God, they should shoot Polanski.
 
2013-04-04 07:14:01 AM  
FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.
 
2013-04-04 07:14:42 AM  
Ive walked through that border with .... shock horror .... credit cards (with a significantly higher limit than 10k)

It is a dumb law

// foreign cards
 
2013-04-04 07:17:55 AM  

Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.


Just wait until you get hit up by the fruit beagle. I was coming back from Japan, and there was a military group who had come back from the same flight. We were waiting to pick up our bags so we could go clear customs and the fruit beagle starts sniffing this one guy's back (who is in full uniform, BTW) The agent makes him open his bag and finds an orange and loses his shiat. "Sir! This is an undeclared orange! You ARE NOT PERMITTED to bring fruit into this country! Did you not READ THE RULES??"

The guy tries to explain they gave him the orange on the damn plane and he was just saving it for later. The agent says "Sir, you are bringing OUT OF COUNTRY fruit INTO THE COUNTRY. You CANNOT do that!. You need to come with me now!"

The haul the guy off somewhere, and I didn't see him again by the time I had gotten my bags and cleared customs.
 
2013-04-04 07:19:56 AM  

Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.


Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.
 
2013-04-04 07:20:26 AM  

Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.


24.media.tumblr.com
This is where we live now... well, minus the cheese. (mostly)
 
2013-04-04 07:23:30 AM  
Who the hell travels with 10k in cash. farking retard. You can get a pre-paid credit card in a snap. What a maroon.
 
2013-04-04 07:26:36 AM  
Silly American.  Something like this would never happen in Canad....oh, wait.
 
2013-04-04 07:29:56 AM  
We should totally try and be more like them.
 
2013-04-04 07:34:48 AM  
Yeah. I'd be more concerned about my civil liberties if there were anyone, ANYONE in the world with a legit reason to bring 10k in cash across the border. You do that to cheat on taxes and/or buy drugs, and for no other reason. That's why there's that law, and why Congress critters who support that kind of law are super popular with voters.
 
2013-04-04 07:35:19 AM  

ongbok: Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.

Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.


You're right.  It shows that you paid your taxes.  It also proves that you reported all of your income because the government knows that you're a liar and a cheat and without them tracking every penny of your financial transactions they wouldn't get all of "their money."  Orwell couldn't even imagine how thoroughly invasive governments would become.
 
2013-04-04 07:36:02 AM  

Two Dogs Farking: Dumbass tag, not Stupid, subby.

/For you, too.


 i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-04 07:38:37 AM  
Criminal record?

Claims to run a business with no record of said business?

Claims it was an inheritance with no record of it?

I'm okay with this.

//Crossed a border once with no cash. This was apparently suspicious. I don't think CBPSA agents know how credit cards work.
 
2013-04-04 07:39:07 AM  
See what freedoms we won after WW2. Why bother.
 
2013-04-04 07:44:21 AM  
Buy a prepaid card next time.
 
2013-04-04 07:45:24 AM  
He represented himself in two levels of court without success.

This also usually works out well.

/ too many shrooms, son
 
2013-04-04 07:45:28 AM  
ModernLuddite:  I'm okay with this.

s9.postimg.org
 
2013-04-04 07:45:35 AM  
Meanwhile bankers move around billions of dollars in tax avoidance slush funds over international boarders everyday.
 
2013-04-04 07:48:54 AM  

mrlewish: Meanwhile bankers move around billions of dollars in tax avoidance slush funds over international boarders everyday.


Both sides are wrong.  So vote what now?
 
2013-04-04 07:50:51 AM  

mbillips: Yeah. I'd be more concerned about my civil liberties if there were anyone, ANYONE in the world with a legit reason to bring 10k in cash across the border. You do that to cheat on taxes and/or buy drugs, and for no other reason.


Canadian automotive import laws are more lax than the US.  The age limit where the EPA and DOT don't care anymore is 25 years, while it's only 15 years in Canada.  There are a lot of interesting Japanese and European cars that got shifted to Canada that are just now starting to become legal to bring into the US.

One of them which is just now starting to come out of the 25 year window is the Lancia Delta Integrale.  Early examples ('87ish) aren't terribly expensive, enough so that one of my goals is to stash enough cash to go north, buy one, and bring it back home.  But it would be a CASH transaction, because Mister Peejay don't do bank accounts.  Sick of the relentless fees.
 
2013-04-04 07:55:33 AM  
It doesn't seem fair to punish people smuggling currency across the border by making them forfeit all of it, but in this case the guy's behavior was clearly shady, and he was given ample opportunity to argue his case in court, so, fark him and his dirty money.
 
2013-04-04 07:56:35 AM  

Mister Peejay: mbillips: Yeah. I'd be more concerned about my civil liberties if there were anyone, ANYONE in the world with a legit reason to bring 10k in cash across the border. You do that to cheat on taxes and/or buy drugs, and for no other reason.

Canadian automotive import laws are more lax than the US.  The age limit where the EPA and DOT don't care anymore is 25 years, while it's only 15 years in Canada.  There are a lot of interesting Japanese and European cars that got shifted to Canada that are just now starting to become legal to bring into the US.

One of them which is just now starting to come out of the 25 year window is the Lancia Delta Integrale.  Early examples ('87ish) aren't terribly expensive, enough so that one of my goals is to stash enough cash to go north, buy one, and bring it back home.  But it would be a CASH transaction, because Mister Peejay don't do bank accounts.  Sick of the relentless fees.


Join a credit union. No fees.
 
2013-04-04 08:00:48 AM  
But why waste a perfectly good opportunity to rail on Nazi customs officials and the Harper government.
 
2013-04-04 08:04:07 AM  

mrlewish: Meanwhile bankers move around billions of dollars in tax avoidance slush funds over international boarders everyday.


Yes, but to be fair, those boarders are rather short in stature.
 
2013-04-04 08:04:47 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

i74.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-04 08:06:50 AM  
I have travelled some by car and/or plane from Canada to Europe, Chile, Mongolia, the USA etc. and I do not recall having to go within 100 yards of Canada Customs when leaving Canada.   No inspection, no interview, no dogs.....

Have I been lucky in the past?

This situation, I don't even...
 
2013-04-04 08:10:50 AM  

cnocnanrionnag: I have travelled some by car and/or plane from Canada to Europe, Chile, Mongolia, the USA etc. and I do not recall having to go within 100 yards of Canada Customs when leaving Canada.   No inspection, no interview, no dogs.....

Have I been lucky in the past?

This situation, I don't even...


This wasn't part of an inspection line.  A Canadian border dog hit on his cash.
 
2013-04-04 08:14:57 AM  
Question:

Canada mints a 1oz gold coin with a face value of $50. If you need to transfer, say, $15000 over the border could you just take 10 Canadian gold coins and then point to the official total face value of $500 to show you're well below the limit?

Or are there laws that would foil my cunning plan?
 
2013-04-04 08:27:30 AM  

I just did a shortish, half-ass paper on this for school. In Tennessee for example, the threshold is $100.


Thats right. $100. If you are carrying more than that in cash, and you get pulled over in one of their little speed traps or "color" traps, and you are carrying more than that, they take it. Alabama, it's $500.



One Linky-Dinky

Two Linky-Dinky

Three Linky-Dinky

Basically, when you get your money stolen by the cops, you are funding Department parties, aquisition of some pretty exotic weaponry and equipment including state-of-the-art helicopter gunships such as AH-64 Apaches (yes, fully armed), heavy equipment like bulldozers, excavators and farm tractors that are mysteriously resold to Sheriffs brothers for pennies, expensive firearms such as Connecticut Shotguns and Purdy Best ($120,000/pair) that are resold by the Departments for cash, multi-tenthousand dollar bonuses for individual Police officers, (one in a small town in southeastern California was making $120,000 as a cop, AND getting $80-$90 thousand per year in bonus money based on all the cash he'd confiscated over the previous fiscal quarter.

The system is robbing you, and it's all legal. And yes, they WILL shoot you dead to confiscate your property through the Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws. They don't have to arrest you, they don't have to charge you with a crime at all. They charge your PROPERTY with suspicion of involvement, and you aren't allowed to even hire a lawyer to defend it.
 
2013-04-04 08:30:19 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Question:

Canada mints a 1oz gold coin with a face value of $50. If you need to transfer, say, $15000 over the border could you just take 10 Canadian gold coins and then point to the official total face value of $500 to show you're well below the limit?

Or are there laws that would foil my cunning plan?


It's the cash value (currency equivalent) of whatever you're carrying.  Coins, bank notes, traveller's checks, cash, even the prepaid credit cards proposed by theknuckler_33are subject to mandatory reporting if the value is over $10k.
 
2013-04-04 08:31:31 AM  

MythDragon: Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.

Just wait until you get hit up by the fruit beagle. I was coming back from Japan, and there was a military group who had come back from the same flight. We were waiting to pick up our bags so we could go clear customs and the fruit beagle starts sniffing this one guy's back (who is in full uniform, BTW) The agent makes him open his bag and finds an orange and loses his shiat. "Sir! This is an undeclared orange! You ARE NOT PERMITTED to bring fruit into this country! Did you not READ THE RULES??"

The guy tries to explain they gave him the orange on the damn plane and he was just saving it for later. The agent says "Sir, you are bringing OUT OF COUNTRY fruit INTO THE COUNTRY. You CANNOT do that!. You need to come with me now!"

The haul the guy off somewhere, and I didn't see him again by the time I had gotten my bags and cleared customs.


This is a good example of how if you looked up why a rule existed, you wouldn't be so indignant.

There are a large number of food-borne parasites and infectious organisms that can only cross the ocean by riding fruit.  It is virtually impossible to determine, without smashing and examining the fruit, whether any given fruit has many/most of these.  In order to protect each country's ecology, most (if not all) countries are extremely strict about these.

What's worse is that most countries have rather differing policies on what pesticides are permissible, what genetically modified foods are growable, etc., and so most countries cannot trust other countries to have policed their fruit according to the way the receiving nation wants.

For example, since 2011 many countries have been dealing with an infestation of the Khapra beetle, and so you cannot import dried rice without permission into the US.  This isn't because the government is necessarily worried about intentionally polluting our food supply, but rather that we're worried about accidentally importing a devastating parasite.
 
2013-04-04 08:35:07 AM  

Deathfrogg: The system is robbing you, and it's all legal. And yes, they WILL shoot you dead to confiscate your property through the Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws. They don't have to arrest you, they don't have to charge you with a crime at all. They charge your PROPERTY with suspicion of involvement, and you aren't allowed to even hire a lawyer to defend it.


Ah, well, don't appear lower class while driving.
 
2013-04-04 08:36:40 AM  
looks like subby is trying to create a  new definition for "well below".
 
2013-04-04 08:38:24 AM  
Coming up next week on Border Security, on Global
 
2013-04-04 08:40:12 AM  

doglover: bighairyguy: Why do stupid people always seem to have more money than I do?

They take bigger risks.

It's why Roman Polanski is a wanted child molester instead of a beloved director whose wife died in a most horrible way. It's because he dared to dream he could be a director while you were making sound financial decisions. It's also why he dared to dream he could corn hole a 14 year old and again dared to dream he could get away with it in France.

Well all of his dreams came true.


I think you just invented the term "Polanski'd A Thread"
 
2013-04-04 08:40:50 AM  

yukichigai: MadSkillz: Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.

Yeah.  Especially via international travel.  Doubly especially because, as far as I know, declaring that you have more than 10k in cash is f%$#ing easy as hell.  Yeah, they'll ask for some paperwork maybe, but it's not a ton.


I've done it once... after a particularly good run at the Blackjack tables in Vegas, which pushed me just a little over the 10k limit. I just asked the TSA (after I got through security) to call over Customs to make a currency export declaration. 10 minutes later, the guy shows up, hands me a form, chats casually with me, accepts my declaration (didn't count the money himself, he accepted it as written as it was a voluntary declaration) and I went on my way. Back into Canada, I checked the box marked "more than $10k in currency" on the Canada Customs form, they asked me how much, wrote it on the form, and sent me on my way.

It's not hard at all, and I was only asked "how'd you get the money?" wherein I replied "won big at the blackjack tables". This guy was trying to smuggle the cash - didn't want any records or questions at all, even though they are pretty much all thrown in a large database to never be referred to again.
 
2013-04-04 08:48:07 AM  

Babwa Wawa: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Question:

Canada mints a 1oz gold coin with a face value of $50. If you need to transfer, say, $15000 over the border could you just take 10 Canadian gold coins and then point to the official total face value of $500 to show you're well below the limit?

Or are there laws that would foil my cunning plan?

It's the cash value (currency equivalent) of whatever you're carrying.  Coins, bank notes, traveller's checks, cash, even the prepaid credit cards proposed by theknuckler_33are subject to mandatory reporting if the value is over $10k.


That doesn't apply to jewelry. You can go to Rio de Jenario or Mexico City, spend a few weeks selling machine guns or heroin or cocaine and make $10 Million or $100 Million, buy a few dozen exotic wristwatches an dother such things, put them in your luggage or just wear them, and walk through customs without the customs officers giving them a second glance. Incidentally, NASDAQ and the NYSE and investment banks such as Goldmann-Sachs are specifically exempted from the money-laundering laws. You can sell $50 million worth of cocaine every year, deposit it in a bank account in Lichtenstein, Monaco or the Cayman Islands, and as long as you funnel that cash into the stock markets the Federal government doesn't give a damn.

Several papers I read during the course of my research into the Civil Asset Forfeitures game seemed to show that, if we took all the illegal weapons and drug money out of the United States stock exchanges, the system would collapse, utterly. About 25% of ALL Stock transactions in the United States is based on drug money alone.

You want to win the drug war? Start busting the Banks, because they are becoming extremely wealthy laundering that cash. Mitt Romney made several tens of Millions of Dollars in that game back in the 80's and early 90's. Thats what his little Caymann Island Bank was created for. Specifically to facilitate the drug cartel's shifting their billions into the US Stock markets. thats why he was considered too dirty to run for President back in '04, the Statutes of Limitations hadn't run out yet.
 
2013-04-04 08:48:38 AM  
i1151.photobucket.com
What $10,000 can buy you at Target.
 
2013-04-04 08:50:46 AM  
I just don't get the point. Why bother risking what amounts to less than my monthly  paycheck? is there really an underground cash economy sufficient to eschew electronic funds that one can maintain any kind of lifestyle on? Either he's so poor that $10,000 is like, his life savings or something and now he's broke, or he's terminally stupid...
 
2013-04-04 08:51:14 AM  

mattharvest: There are a large number of food-borne parasites and infectious organisms that can only cross the ocean by riding fruit. It is virtually impossible to determine, without smashing and examining the fruit, whether any given fruit has many/most of these. In order to protect each country's ecology, most (if not all) countries are extremely strict about these.


Then don't hand them out on the farking plane. I'm not disagreeing with you because those rules are there for a long list of very good reasons. But are we so incomplete that we can't go twelve or fourteen hours without a fresh fruit that will probably just taste like vaseline at 30,000 feet anyway?
 
2013-04-04 08:52:09 AM  

Deathfrogg: I just did a shortish, half-ass paper on this for school. I


Here's the problem: none of the sources you link to provide any (i.e. more than zero) information about actual use of these laws.  While they point to the volume of the seizure accounts in a few jurisdictions, they don't provide a single link to an actual case where the forfeiture was inappropriate.

Moreover, they seem blithely wrong about the law (including the Cato one): you can always bring a lawyer to any legal proceeding in the courts (except Small Claims, where there are a few restrictions in some places).  Just because you're not given a free one doesn't mean you don't have the right to have an attorney there.

There's no doubt that it's possible these laws are abused, but you cannot just assume they're being abused.  If it's so common, why were those sources completely unable to even present one example, much less any sort of valid data sets?
 
2013-04-04 08:53:39 AM  

Flakeloaf: mattharvest: There are a large number of food-borne parasites and infectious organisms that can only cross the ocean by riding fruit. It is virtually impossible to determine, without smashing and examining the fruit, whether any given fruit has many/most of these. In order to protect each country's ecology, most (if not all) countries are extremely strict about these.

Then don't hand them out on the farking plane. I'm not disagreeing with you because those rules are there for a long list of very good reasons. But are we so incomplete that we can't go twelve or fourteen hours without a fresh fruit that will probably just taste like vaseline at 30,000 feet anyway?


Well, now you're complaining about the particular airline that handed out the fruit (lord, I don't think I've ever received fruit on a plane since the 80s).  The airline isn't the nation's customs enforcement agency.
 
2013-04-04 08:55:21 AM  
If you are close, just declare it.

/now it's easier to just use bitcoin
 
2013-04-04 08:56:06 AM  

willfullyobscure: I just don't get the point. Why bother risking what amounts to less than my monthly  paycheck? is there really an underground cash economy sufficient to eschew electronic funds that one can maintain any kind of lifestyle on? Either he's so poor that $10,000 is like, his life savings or something and now he's broke, or he's terminally stupid...


There are banks in this world where the minimum required balance is $100 Million or more, several with minimum balance requirements of $1 Billion. Those banks are "private". They are exempt from nearly every money laundering law there is. They're the sort of place where you call the manager, and set up an appointment and they send a Rolls Royce limousine to pick you up and take you to the Bank to do your business.

It's much easier to borrow $100 Million, than it is to borrow $100,000.
 
2013-04-04 08:56:38 AM  

Flakeloaf: mattharvest: There are a large number of food-borne parasites and infectious organisms that can only cross the ocean by riding fruit. It is virtually impossible to determine, without smashing and examining the fruit, whether any given fruit has many/most of these. In order to protect each country's ecology, most (if not all) countries are extremely strict about these.

Then don't hand them out on the farking plane. I'm not disagreeing with you because those rules are there for a long list of very good reasons. But are we so incomplete that we can't go twelve or fourteen hours without a fresh fruit that will probably just taste like vaseline at 30,000 feet anyway?


They gave you the fruit to eat on the plane, not to take with you.  And like mattharvest said I've never seen an airline give out fresh fruit.
 
2013-04-04 08:57:00 AM  

mrlewish: Meanwhile bankers move around billions of dollars in tax avoidance slush funds over international boarders everyday.



Yeah, 10 thousand is not really that much money. Try buying a house  with 10 thousand.
 
2013-04-04 08:58:49 AM  

Babwa Wawa: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Question:

Canada mints a 1oz gold coin with a face value of $50. If you need to transfer, say, $15000 over the border could you just take 10 Canadian gold coins and then point to the official total face value of $500 to show you're well below the limit?

Or are there laws that would foil my cunning plan?

It's the cash value (currency equivalent) of whatever you're carrying.  Coins, bank notes, traveller's checks, cash, even the prepaid credit cards proposed by theknuckler_33are subject to mandatory reporting if the value is over $10k.


Right, but a currency dog isn't going to sniff out a prepaid card.

Of course if they raised the stupid customs allowance, you wouldn't have a whole population of us living close to the border who are experienced at, say, wearing several sweaters through customs.
 
2013-04-04 09:03:51 AM  

mattharvest: Deathfrogg: I just did a shortish, half-ass paper on this for school. I

Here's the problem: none of the sources you link to provide any (i.e. more than zero) information about actual use of these laws.  While they point to the volume of the seizure accounts in a few jurisdictions, they don't provide a single link to an actual case where the forfeiture was inappropriate.

Moreover, they seem blithely wrong about the law (including the Cato one): you can always bring a lawyer to any legal proceeding in the courts (except Small Claims, where there are a few restrictions in some places).  Just because you're not given a free one doesn't mean you don't have the right to have an attorney there.

There's no doubt that it's possible these laws are abused, but you cannot just assume they're being abused.  If it's so common, why were those sources completely unable to even present one example, much less any sort of valid data sets?


Thats just it. There are no court proceedings involved. They are not required to tell you anything,  you are not the one being charged. The cash (or other property) is the suspect in the case. One case I read was a pair of brothers traveling from Central Illinois to Mississippi to buy an excavator for their construction business. They had all the proper legal documents in order, and the $22,000 they had in cash for the down payment was all they had saved over the previous few years. The money was taken in Tennessee, and they had no spare money to hire a lawyer unless they cashed out all their other assets. In any case, as YOU are not the individual being charged, only the money, there are no requirements for Law Enforcement to notify YOU of anything.

The courts are almost never involved unless YOU file the lawsuit.
 
2013-04-04 09:06:31 AM  

mattharvest: Flakeloaf: mattharvest: There are a large number of food-borne parasites and infectious organisms that can only cross the ocean by riding fruit. It is virtually impossible to determine, without smashing and examining the fruit, whether any given fruit has many/most of these. In order to protect each country's ecology, most (if not all) countries are extremely strict about these.

Then don't hand them out on the farking plane. I'm not disagreeing with you because those rules are there for a long list of very good reasons. But are we so incomplete that we can't go twelve or fourteen hours without a fresh fruit that will probably just taste like vaseline at 30,000 feet anyway?

Well, now you're complaining about the particular airline that handed out the fruit (lord, I don't think I've ever received fruit on a plane since the 80s).  The airline isn't the nation's customs enforcement agency.


I have gotten fruit on every single transatlantic flight (to and from the US) I've been on in the last ten years and I don't think I've used a single carrier more than once per round-trip. So yeah, if it's that much of a problem, FFS stop passing out fruit to people.
 
2013-04-04 09:12:29 AM  

Deathfrogg: Thats just it. There are no court proceedings involved. They are not required to tell you anything,  you are not the one being charged. The cash (or other property) is the suspect in the case. One case I read was a pair of brothers traveling from Central Illinois to Mississippi to buy an excavator for their construction business. They had all the proper legal documents in order, and the $22,000 they had in cash for the down payment was all they had saved over the previous few years. The money was taken in Tennessee, and they had no spare money to hire a lawyer unless they cashed out all their other assets. In any case, as YOU are not the individual being charged, only the money, there are no requirements for Law Enforcement to notify YOU of anything.

The courts are almost never involved unless YOU file the lawsuit.


When you use the wrong words for things, it makes me think you didn't research this well.

When you file a replevin - which isn't a lawsuit, actually, since you're not suing anyone - you're requesting the return of your property.  Doing this has a minimal filing  fee (as all court proceedings do).  Here in Maryland, it's a trivial process: you serve a copy on the seizing agency and the State's Attorney's office, and you show up for your hearing.  The State then has the burden of showing why it should not be returned (by default, you get it back if you ask and in fact, much of the time the State simply declines to hold a hearing and agrees to the return).

This is true in every state of which I'm aware.

No one, including the property, is being 'charged' with anything.  Don't use inflammatory rhetoric.

I notice that, in the anecdote you include here, you don't include any discussion of what efforts - legal or otherwise - these brothers made to get their money back, to document their money, etc.  Did either of them bother to make themselves aware of the statutes relating to carrying around $22,000 in cash?  Did either of them bother to document any of their income?  If they reported all this as income, it should be trivial to bring in their documents.

Additionally, I have never in my life - including years of prosecuting economic crime - heard of a construction company that was going to legitimately sell a piece of equipment for $22k in cash.  If nothing else, they'd have to subsequently deposit that in their bank accounts and large cash deposits trigger a whole bunch of issues (including freezing your account for investigations, etc.) that they'd never suffer.

There is zero reason whatsoever that, in a legitimate transaction, those 'brothers' wouldn't have used a variety of means (e.g. money orders, wire transfers, standard bank transfers, etc.) that would have avoided the whole hassle.
 
2013-04-04 09:15:03 AM  

abhorrent1: I love how they can arbitrarily decide the money you have is proceeds of a crime and just take it. And why is it only $10k and over can be the result of a crime? Maybe he was going to a casino.


10k$ in cash that you _refuse to declare_ probably is the result of a crime.  Kind of like how if when you're pulled over you lie about having a firearm in your car, then one is found when you're searched for whatever probable cause: it's entirely reasonable to think there's something fishy about the gun in question.

Had he declared the cash at customs like he _obviously_ knew he had to, given his attempt to tune it specifically to the limit, then it would not have been an issue.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Question:

Canada mints a 1oz gold coin with a face value of $50. If you need to transfer, say, $15000 over the border could you just take 10 Canadian gold coins and then point to the official total face value of $500 to show you're well below the limit?

Or are there laws that would foil my cunning plan?


Well, melting them back down would be destruction of currency, which is a felony, and if you cast them yourself (I assume we're talking about a coin that's not being minted anymore) that's forgery, which is an international felony if you're transporting it across a border.

If they're real coins and you don't fark with them, sure, that'd work.
 
2013-04-04 09:18:17 AM  

Deathfrogg: About 25% of ALL Stock transactions in the United States is based on drug money alone.



Is that the real reason it "can't" be legalized?
 
2013-04-04 09:25:41 AM  

mattharvest: MythDragon: Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.

Just wait until you get hit up by the fruit beagle. I was coming back from Japan, and there was a military group who had come back from the same flight. We were waiting to pick up our bags so we could go clear customs and the fruit beagle starts sniffing this one guy's back (who is in full uniform, BTW) The agent makes him open his bag and finds an orange and loses his shiat. "Sir! This is an undeclared orange! You ARE NOT PERMITTED to bring fruit into this country! Did you not READ THE RULES??"

The guy tries to explain they gave him the orange on the damn plane and he was just saving it for later. The agent says "Sir, you are bringing OUT OF COUNTRY fruit INTO THE COUNTRY. You CANNOT do that!. You need to come with me now!"

The haul the guy off somewhere, and I didn't see him again by the time I had gotten my bags and cleared customs.

This is a good example of how if you looked up why a rule existed, you wouldn't be so indignant.

There are a large number of food-borne parasites and infectious organisms that can only cross the ocean by riding fruit.  It is virtually impossible to determine, without smashing and examining the fruit, whether any given fruit has many/most of these.  In order to protect each country's ecology, most (if not all) countries are extremely strict about these.

What's worse is that most countries have rather differing policies on what pesticides are permissible, what genetically modified foods are growable, etc., and so most countries cannot trust other countries to have policed their fruit according to the way the receiving nation wants.

For example, since 2011 many countries have been dealing with an infestation of the Khapra beetle, and so you cannot import dried rice without permission into the US.  This isn't because the government is necessarily worried about intentionally polluting our food supply, but rather that we're w ...


It was an orange he got on the Goddamn plane. He wasn't smuggling West Asian Carp Nugget Trees which might contain the invasive Red Ethiopian Limpet Weevil. That would make sense that you can't have those. It was food that was flown, by the airline, into the country already. They didn't make an announcement that "Any food given to you on this flight must be consumed before leaving". One would assume that food provided on the flight to the country you're going to would be allowed in the country you're going to.
 
2013-04-04 09:31:14 AM  

mattharvest: Deathfrogg:


I am not a lawyer. I have no intention of ever becoming one. I'm a 48 year old college student jumping through a hoop in a PoliSci class on my way to a manufacturing engineering degree. I spent weeks trying to sift through Federal Statutes on the subject. Talk about obfuscation, Jesus.

Incidentally, I scored an A on the paper and a B in the class. These laws go way back to the British Crown and predate the US Constitution by over a century, and were a major factor in fostering the American Rebellion. But they were also among the first laws passed by Congress in the 1790s.

The laws are rather clear on the subject. There is no burden of proof required upon the States or the Federal Government required to prove the money was illegitimate. The proof is on the person who had their asset confiscated to prove it wasn't involved in a crime. These are not criminal laws, but civil. No suspicion of criminality is necessary.

Or are you forgetting the US Constitution?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Civil Asset Forfeiture laws are not criminal statutes, they are Civil. These laws are being used to rob people all over the country.
 
2013-04-04 09:32:22 AM  
I'm shocked and saddened by how many of you are ok with this.  It's seriously farked up that a government body can do this to it's people.  He wasn't even charged with a crime.  They just didn't like what he had to say so they took his money.  And all anyone had to say on the matter was, "Well, it was suspicious.  And he couldn't prove he wasn't going to break the law... so the money is ours now."

/Disgusting.
 
2013-04-04 09:34:34 AM  

mattharvest: Here in Maryland, it's a trivial process: you serve a copy on the seizing agency and the State's Attorney's office, and you show up for your hearing.  The State then has the burden of showing why it should not be returned (by default, you get it back if you ask and in fact, much of the time the State simply declines to hold a hearing and agrees to the return).


Or you may have to get together with others who had their property confiscated, get the Department of Justice involved and with the support from the ACLU enter into a four year long legal battle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture_controve rs y

Or enter into a three year long legal battle with the Feds...

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/15/feds-give-up-trying-to-seize-a-mot el -bas

Or spend four months trying to get back bail money the police instructed you to bring to the jail in cash...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/asset-forfeiture-wisconsin- ba il-confiscated_n_1522328.html

Note - given the cash amounts in most cases and the time required to fight the case it would not be worth attempting to get the money back unless you can get a lawyer to represent you pro-bono.
 
2013-04-04 09:35:57 AM  

abhorrent1: I love how they can arbitrarily decide the money you have is proceeds of a crime and just take it. And why is it only $10k and over can be the result of a crime? Maybe he was going to a casino.


That's not how it worked.  It was the importation of more than $10 000 that was a crime.  Had he declared it, they might have investigated, but they couldn't just seize it.

Same with guns.  When the Canadian Border Guard asks if you have a firearm, say yes.  They'll take it, and for a fee, will hold it for you.  Don't declare it, and you're going to jail.
 
2013-04-04 09:36:44 AM  

dyhchong: Except he was guilty and it was proven, he brought in more than $10,000 without declaring it. They didn't just look at the money and say it was over 10k, they calculated it to make sure.


And two days earlier it wasn`t over. They had to calculate it to find him slightly over.

Are you really saying that $9,999.99 is only ever carried by law abiding citizens and 10,000.01 is only ever carried by people who obtained the money by crime?

Are you really happy with saying that having over $10,000 itself is PROOF of criminal activity and so said monies should be confiscated?

You sound poor. And stupid. And an authoritarian conformer...
 
2013-04-04 09:37:55 AM  
Does it really matter whether he was $20 under or $20 over? Does that really give them the right to STEAL it? They're the ones claiming it was being used in a crime, the burden of proof should be on them. farking disgusting. Remind me to never go to canada!
 
2013-04-04 09:39:55 AM  
I'm going to have to go with:
Dumbass.  Even if you're telling the truth, you're making yourself look guilty.  You're a con that sells "mushrooms" that's deliberately skirting the law.  That's just asking for an asshole / hard nosed cop to come down on you.

Either declare the money or stay WELL below the limit.

Or better yet, get a money order or cashiers check.
 
2013-04-04 09:40:59 AM  

MythDragon: One would assume that food provided on the flight to the country you're going to would be allowed in the country you're going to.


Who said they didn`t put it onto the plane in the same country meaning that it was NOT fruit brought from another country...
 
2013-04-04 09:43:19 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Question:

Canada mints a 1oz gold coin with a face value of $50. If you need to transfer, say, $15000 over the border could you just take 10 Canadian gold coins and then point to the official total face value of $500 to show you're well below the limit?

Or are there laws that would foil my cunning plan?


I bought a friend of mine a commemorative coin made of silver for his daughters birth and sent it to him, and declared the value of the coin as the face value. I paid more for it than face value, which is where the issues could come up, but according to law here I can walk into a store and buy something for 100kr with it.

Thinking about it, there are people who collect US bills with odd serial numbers. Example a 100 dollar bill with 000000001 or something can go for a lot of money. Lets say you bought one. How would you declare it?
 
2013-04-04 09:45:24 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: mattharvest: Here in Maryland, it's a trivial process: you serve a copy on the seizing agency and the State's Attorney's office, and you show up for your hearing.  The State then has the burden of showing why it should not be returned (by default, you get it back if you ask and in fact, much of the time the State simply declines to hold a hearing and agrees to the return).

Or you may have to get together with others who had their property confiscated, get the Department of Justice involved and with the support from the ACLU enter into a four year long legal battle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture_controve rs y

Or enter into a three year long legal battle with the Feds...

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/15/feds-give-up-trying-to-seize-a-mot el -bas

Or spend four months trying to get back bail money the police instructed you to bring to the jail in cash...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/asset-forfeiture-wisconsin- ba il-confiscated_n_1522328.html

Note - given the cash amounts in most cases and the time required to fight the case it would not be worth attempting to get the money back unless you can get a lawyer to represent you pro-bono.


TY Evil. The Motel one was one of the anecdotes I cited in the crappy little paper I wrote for class.

Say you have $1500.00 in cash, because you are going to buy a car. A cop pulls you over because your tail light was flickering as you turned a corner, and he asks you if you are carrying any cash. You tell him no, and refuse a search. The cop then brings in a dog to sniff around your car. The dog gives off some sort of positive response, and they find the cash. They arrest you for lying to a cop, and your money is taken.

Just having the money is considered probable cause to charge that money with a civil offense, especially if that money is contaminated with drug residue as is nearly every bill in circulation.

The Tehana case is especially egregious, as the cops admitted in open court that they had trained their dogs to respond to the handlers signals to give that positive response whether or not the dog had actually found anything.
 
2013-04-04 09:48:06 AM  
Being legal is not a grey area especially in accounting. Either you have 9,999.99 or less or you don`t. You can`t have over AND under $10k. If he checked the exchange rate and allowed a margin of $120 then that should be ok.

Personally I think you should be able to check the exchange rate on the day you buy the flight or any day inbetween then and your flight and optionally use any of the exchange rates.
 
2013-04-04 09:48:16 AM  

Deathfrogg: Say you have $1500.00 in cash, because you are going to buy a car. A cop pulls you over because your tail light was flickering as you turned a corner, and he asks you if you are carrying any cash. You tell him no, and refuse a search. The cop then brings in a dog to sniff around your car. The dog gives off some sort of positive response, and they find the cash. They arrest you for lying to a cop, and your money is taken.


A) Lying to a police officer to avoid prosecution is a crime in some jurisdictions, not all.  However, if you're in a jurisdiction where it's a crime then your whole argument is moot.

B) Absent other evidence of a crime, they don't have a right to simply hold you while they wait for drug dogs for more than a short while.

C) You're just erecting a strawman, since no one does this.  You're just assuming the existence of these stops.  They have nothing to do with cases like that Motel.
 
2013-04-04 09:48:55 AM  

Moonlightfox: Does it really matter whether he was $20 under or $20 over? Does that really give them the right to STEAL it? They're the ones claiming it was being used in a crime, the burden of proof should be on them. farking disgusting. Remind me to never go to canada!


Yes, it does matter.  Feel free to stuff $9980.00 in your panties and walk right in.
10k, declare it, walk right in.
10k+1, don't declare it, get caught, you've committed a crime, and you lose the proceeds of that crime.

And it works exactly the same going in the other direction.

Yes, the threshold is arbitrary,   All thresholds are.  But they need to be set somewhere.
 
2013-04-04 09:49:32 AM  

dready zim: Are you really happy with saying that having over $10,000 itself is PROOF of criminal activity and so said monies should be confiscated?


Once more: the crime is failing to declare the money, not having it itself.  If he'd declared it, they would have investigated it with him and he'd likely have been fine.  It was the decision to break the law and fail to declare that created any issue.
 
2013-04-04 09:50:11 AM  

Deathfrogg: Say you have $1500.00 in cash, because you are going to buy a car. A cop pulls you over because your tail light was flickering as you turned a corner, and he asks you if you are carrying over $2000. You tell him no, and refuse a search. The cop then brings in a dog to sniff around your car. The dog gives off some sort of positive response, and they find the cash. They arrest you for lying to a cop, and your money is taken.


This is more like the story. Apples to apples.
 
2013-04-04 09:55:46 AM  

mattharvest: B) Absent other evidence of a crime, they don't have a right to simply hold you while they wait for drug dogs for more than a short while.


And what are you going to do if they disagree?
 
2013-04-04 10:01:43 AM  

mattharvest: Deathfrogg: Say you have $1500.00 in cash, because you are going to buy a car. A cop pulls you over because your tail light was flickering as you turned a corner, and he asks you if you are carrying any cash. You tell him no, and refuse a search. The cop then brings in a dog to sniff around your car. The dog gives off some sort of positive response, and they find the cash. They arrest you for lying to a cop, and your money is taken.

A) Lying to a police officer to avoid prosecution is a crime in some jurisdictions, not all.  However, if you're in a jurisdiction where it's a crime then your whole argument is moot.


A cop can assume you are lying, anytime he wants to. Even if he has to lie to do it. Cops lie all the time, even under oath. The lawyer I talked to during the course of setting up for this paper told me that cops are totally unreliable and untrustworthy as witnesses, as they lie, constantly, even when they don't need to.

B) Absent other evidence of a crime, they don't have a right to simply hold you while they wait for drug dogs for more than a short while.

Tell that to the poor slob who is being told they will have their kids taken and sent to foster homes of they don't sign away their rights to challenge the confiscation of the money, or who is being held on the side of a freeway for four hours while the cops go through every possible scenario as to why you are carrying cash money.

C) You're just erecting a strawman, since no one does this.  You're just assuming the existence of these stops.  They have nothing to do with cases like that Motel.

The stops happen every single day, in every State in the Union. They aren't after stopping the drug trade, they are after taking peoples money whether or not the money was illegally acquired. They don't care about anything but the money. In Tennessee, the cops park themselves in the southbound lanes of the freeway, and pull over anyone with out-of-state license plates or who have a skin color that indicates ancestry anywhere south of England, and take any money they can get, as I said, the threshold there is any amount over $100. If they were interested in actually stopping drug smuggling, they would park their cars watching the Northbound lanes.

When you have Police Officers making cash money off of their work, you will have cops doing anything they can to increase access to that money. It is institutionalized corruption.
 
2013-04-04 10:02:33 AM  

MythDragon: It was an orange he got on the Goddamn plane. He wasn't smuggling West Asian Carp Nugget Trees which might contain the invasive Red Ethiopian Limpet Weevil. That would make sense that you can't have those. It was food that was flown, by the airline, into the country already. They didn't make an announcement that "Any food given to you on this flight must be consumed before leaving". One would assume that food provided on the flight to the country you're going to would be allowed in the country you're going to.


The customs form you fill out prior to landing asks about shiat like fresh fruit. It doesn't matter if you got it on the plane or not, you still need to either not bring it in to the country, or declare it on the customs form. It really isn't a difficult concept unless you're a complete moron. Whether it is stupid or not, in that circumstance, is irrelevant.

I swear some people just shouldn't ever cross international borders.

Honest Bender: I'm shocked and saddened by how many of you are ok with this.  It's seriously farked up that a government body can do this to it's people.  He wasn't even charged with a crime.  They just didn't like what he had to say so they took his money.  And all anyone had to say on the matter was, "Well, it was suspicious.  And he couldn't prove he wasn't going to break the law... so the money is ours now."

/Disgusting.


He broke a law... he took more than $10K in currency across the border without declaring it. He wasn't oblivious to the law as he tried very hard to get just below the limit, but he obviously didn't do a good enough job.
 
2013-04-04 10:04:15 AM  

Teknowaffle: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Question:

Canada mints a 1oz gold coin with a face value of $50. If you need to transfer, say, $15000 over the border could you just take 10 Canadian gold coins and then point to the official total face value of $500 to show you're well below the limit?

Or are there laws that would foil my cunning plan?

I bought a friend of mine a commemorative coin made of silver for his daughters birth and sent it to him, and declared the value of the coin as the face value. I paid more for it than face value, which is where the issues could come up, but according to law here I can walk into a store and buy something for 100kr with it.

Thinking about it, there are people who collect US bills with odd serial numbers. Example a 100 dollar bill with 000000001 or something can go for a lot of money. Lets say you bought one. How would you declare it?


If it is legal tender the collector's value doesn't matter, just it's currency value. As for those Canadian Maple Leafs and other precious metal coins, they are minted with a legal tender face value, but their real value is in their weight and metal type, and were made to be a way to invest in precious metals. So when it comes to declaring bullion coins at the border, I don't really know how they would determine the value, by the face value or the current value of the metal.
 
2013-04-04 10:04:30 AM  

Deathfrogg: I just did a shortish, half-ass paper on this for school. In Tennessee for example, the threshold is $100.

Thats right. $100. If you are carrying more than that in cash, and you get pulled over in one of their little speed traps or "color" traps, and you are carrying more than that, they take it. Alabama, it's $500.


Oh fark that.  Petition.
 
2013-04-04 10:07:38 AM  

MadSkillz: Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.

It just keeps walking away from me!

Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.


Yeah absolutely. I wouldn't call $9,999 "well below" like subby. I was ready to be outraged but the dude is definitely up to some shiat. Especially since he doesn't have any business records to back up his claims of its source.
 
2013-04-04 10:09:32 AM  

dready zim: dyhchong: Except he was guilty and it was proven, he brought in more than $10,000 without declaring it. They didn't just look at the money and say it was over 10k, they calculated it to make sure.

And two days earlier it wasn`t over. They had to calculate it to find him slightly over.

Are you really saying that $9,999.99 is only ever carried by law abiding citizens and 10,000.01 is only ever carried by people who obtained the money by crime?

Are you really happy with saying that having over $10,000 itself is PROOF of criminal activity and so said monies should be confiscated?

You sound poor. And stupid. And an authoritarian conformer...


Smart rich people don't move cash across the border. They pay the minimal fees (minimal when compared to their assets and the money they are trying to move) and do so legally. Or, if they really need to take large amounts of cash across the border, they declare it.

Teknowaffle: Thinking about it, there are people who collect US bills with odd serial numbers. Example a 100 dollar bill with 000000001 or something can go for a lot of money. Lets say you bought one. How would you declare it?


I'm pretty sure you are always safe going with the face value of the currency.
 
2013-04-04 10:10:26 AM  

Weaver95: MadSkillz: Bucky Katt: FTFA: a currency detector dog

I had no idea there was such a thing.  Now I'm scared.

It just keeps walking away from me!

Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.

I guess we are no longer innocent until proven guilty.  now we're guilty and are not permitted to prove our innocence.  I think I'll go wave my tiny flags now, and pretend I matter to the powers that rule our lives.


What are you talking about? He broke the rules and has gone to court a couple times and lost each time. It's nit like this happened out of the blue.
 
2013-04-04 10:14:45 AM  

nmemkha: I love how the outrageous becomes the new normal.

"If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about!"


Obama rules the universe, so your inquiry is now racist.

/seriously, guy is a money mule, probably for his cocaine dealer
//whoops, should have spreadsheet faster
 
2013-04-04 10:15:19 AM  

Deathfrogg: The system is robbing you, and it's all legal. And yes, they WILL shoot you dead to confiscate your property through the Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws. They don't have to arrest you, they don't have to charge you with a crime at all. They charge your PROPERTY with suspicion of involvement, and you aren't allowed to even hire a lawyer to defend it.


Never forget and keep repeating the mantra, conservatives, that we live in a free country! Never forget and keep repeating the mantra, liberals, that giving government ever more power and money will result in a more fair and equitable society for the little guy!

/not really
//you're both delusional dumbasses
 
2013-04-04 10:20:00 AM  

Moosecakes: What are you talking about? He broke the rules and has gone to court a couple times and lost each time. It's nit like this happened out of the blue.


He's gone to court and got the ruling "The court doesn't see how you've proven you were doing no wrong and that you didn't get the money by being a criminal, hence we assume you are a criminal because we have no proof that you're innocent, and we are taking the money."
 
2013-04-04 10:25:13 AM  

entropic_existence: He broke a law...


Yes. And that law is disgusting bullshiat.  What's your point?  Or are you one of those people who blindly think everything illegal is bad?
 
2013-04-04 10:27:01 AM  
International airports have incinerators to destroy food brought from out of the country on airplanes - if you don't eat it/they don't serve it, it's getting burned. They also use it to burn drugs, counterfeit goods, smuggled bushmeat from Africa (welcome to Houston), etc.
 
2013-04-04 10:31:37 AM  

mightybaldking: Moonlightfox: Does it really matter whether he was $20 under or $20 over? Does that really give them the right to STEAL it? They're the ones claiming it was being used in a crime, the burden of proof should be on them. farking disgusting. Remind me to never go to canada!

Yes, it does matter.  Feel free to stuff $9980.00 in your panties and walk right in.
10k, declare it, walk right in.
10k+1, don't declare it, get caught, you've committed a crime, and you lose the proceeds of that crime.

And it works exactly the same going in the other direction.

Yes, the threshold is arbitrary,   All thresholds are.  But they need to be set somewhere.



Why?
 
2013-04-04 11:05:38 AM  

Honest Bender: entropic_existence: He broke a law...

Yes. And that law is disgusting bullshiat.  What's your point?  Or are you one of those people who blindly think everything illegal is bad?


No, there are lots of bad laws on the books. I don't agree that this law is actually bad though either. The major point being that the law doesn't say you can't take more than $10K in cash across a border, but that if you want to do so you need to declare it. You also need to explain it in some way (gambling winnings for instance, or some other proof that it isn't ill-gotten gains). People who operate cash businesses like he claims to, do generally know how to prove their income for tax purposes. If it was an inheritance it should also be documented somehow. This particular person may have just been stupid/negligent, but the law itself isn't really to blame for that.
 
2013-04-04 11:08:10 AM  

Honest Bender: entropic_existence: He broke a law...

Yes. And that law is disgusting bullshiat.  What's your point?  Or are you one of those people who blindly think everything illegal is bad?


What in particular is bullshiat about the law? A government shouldnt have the ability to track or account for large sums of money crossing their border? Is there something evil about filling out a simple form that says "I am entering your country with $x"?
 
2013-04-04 11:12:09 AM  
What if he had a stack of this?

www.pennylicious.com
 
2013-04-04 11:17:03 AM  

yukichigai: MadSkillz: Side note: This guy taking just under the legal limit seems ... less than legit.

Yeah.  Especially via international travel.  Doubly especially because, as far as I know, declaring that you have more than 10k in cash is f%$#ing easy as hell.  Yeah, they'll ask for some paperwork maybe, but it's not a ton.

Mr. Docherty has now lost his bid to get any of the money back.


This guys sounds like a real docherty nozzle.
 
2013-04-04 11:27:31 AM  

bluefoxicy: Moosecakes: What are you talking about? He broke the rules and has gone to court a couple times and lost each time. It's nit like this happened out of the blue.

He's gone to court and got the ruling "The court doesn't see how you've proven you were doing no wrong and that you didn't get the money by being a criminal, hence we assume you are a criminal because we have no proof that you're innocent, and we are taking the money."


NO

The court said, twice:

You broke the law by not declaring that you were carrying over $10 000  in cash, a declaration that is easier to fill out than calculate 20 bucks under the limit, but since the spirit of the law is to stop crime, if you can prove this money is not criminally related, we will pardon your crime of not declaring your cash because we aren't dicks.

He is guilty of not declaring the cash.

He had the opportunity of having his crime waived if he could prove the money was legit.

He has no ability to do so, so he's either lazy or did get the money through proceeds of crime.

Therefore he doesn't get his crime waived, and doesn't get his money.

His crime is not carrying over 10 000 in cash over the border, it's for carrying it without declaring it so that the money could be tracked.

Why was he working so hard to avoid having the money declared and legitimized when he knew he could have brought as much as he wanted if he declared it. Once declared the crown would have to prove a crime was committed before they could even investigate the money's source.
 
2013-04-04 11:29:04 AM  

theknuckler_33: Who the hell travels with 10k in cash. farking retard. You can get a pre-paid credit card in a snap. What a maroon.


Who are you to judge?

In a free society he doesn't have to give an explanation to you or anyone else. (I know, we haven't been a free society in a long time)

Besides, a prepaid card (stored value) is considered cash for the purposes of this regulation now, as well.

A more interesting question, on the US side, is if you file the FinCEN 105 do they have any right to question you about the cash or cash equivalent? Or more accurately, do you have a duty to answer to avoid  theft confiscation of it?
 
2013-04-04 11:52:43 AM  

slykens1: theknuckler_33: Who the hell travels with 10k in cash. farking retard. You can get a pre-paid credit card in a snap. What a maroon.

Who are you to judge?

In a free society he doesn't have to give an explanation to you or anyone else. (I know, we haven't been a free society in a long time)

Besides, a prepaid card (stored value) is considered cash for the purposes of this regulation now, as well.

A more interesting question, on the US side, is if you file the FinCEN 105 do they have any right to question you about the cash or cash equivalent? Or more accurately, do you have a duty to answer to avoid  theft confiscation of it?


Yes a pre-paid card is considered cash but that credit card is a bit smaller than $10,000 in cash and can be put into your wallet without anyone batting an eye.
 
2013-04-04 12:46:42 PM  

mattharvest: dready zim: Are you really happy with saying that having over $10,000 itself is PROOF of criminal activity and so said monies should be confiscated?

Once more: the crime is failing to declare the money, not having it itself.  If he'd declared it, they would have investigated it with him and he'd likely have been fine.  It was the decision to break the law and fail to declare that created any issue.


Once more, his money was assumed to be the proceeds of crime. This assumption validated the confiscation. The proof of this is the money itself and nothing else. You are not talking about what I am and your reasoning is therefore erroneous.

If you persist in responding to me, yet not the topic I am talking about, then either you are really stupid or just trolling.

Either way you would still be wrong in this context.
 
2013-04-04 12:54:03 PM  

entropic_existence: Smart rich people don't move cash across the border. They pay the minimal fees (minimal when compared to their assets and the money they are trying to move) and do so legally. Or, if they really need to take large amounts of cash across the border, they declare it.


This is very true but there should not be draconian penalties for being a few dollars over the limit when the difference is caused by a shift in the exchange rate less than 2 days ago. Truly rich smart people just have enough ready funds in all the countries they visit.

This is a thing to catch people moving relatively small amounts of cash. The truly big players this is designed to catch will NEVER get caught by this.

Also it is just plain wrong to say "You have $10,000 therefore we have decided you are a criminal with no evidence except the money and we are taking it"
 
2013-04-04 12:58:31 PM  
FTA "$9,880 U.S."

10000-9880=120

C_Canuk: a declaration that is easier to fill out than calculate 20 bucks under the limit


It was 120. not 20. This should have been a safe margin. The argument you based upon a margin or $20 is now invalid.
 
2013-04-04 01:01:52 PM  

dready zim: mattharvest: dready zim: Are you really happy with saying that having over $10,000 itself is PROOF of criminal activity and so said monies should be confiscated?

Once more: the crime is failing to declare the money, not having it itself.  If he'd declared it, they would have investigated it with him and he'd likely have been fine.  It was the decision to break the law and fail to declare that created any issue.

Once more, his money was assumed to be the proceeds of crime. This assumption validated the confiscation. The proof of this is the money itself and nothing else. You are not talking about what I am and your reasoning is therefore erroneous.

If you persist in responding to me, yet not the topic I am talking about, then either you are really stupid or just trolling.

Either way you would still be wrong in this context.


Well the proof was the money, him not declaring it, and him not having any proof of were he came up with it.
 
2013-04-04 01:06:17 PM  

dready zim: entropic_existence: Smart rich people don't move cash across the border. They pay the minimal fees (minimal when compared to their assets and the money they are trying to move) and do so legally. Or, if they really need to take large amounts of cash across the border, they declare it.

This is very true but there should not be draconian penalties for being a few dollars over the limit when the difference is caused by a shift in the exchange rate less than 2 days ago. Truly rich smart people just have enough ready funds in all the countries they visit.

This is a thing to catch people moving relatively small amounts of cash. The truly big players this is designed to catch will NEVER get caught by this.

Also it is just plain wrong to say "You have $10,000 therefore we have decided you are a criminal with no evidence except the money and we are taking it"


While I think in this particular case, the guy was simply an idiot/negligent, like I said the real issue isn't moving money, it is not declaring it. If I had to travel with that much cash, and wanted to be below the $10K threshold, I would definitely check the exchange rates and recalculate the day of travel to be sure I was actually under. I'd probably give myself a fairly significant buffer as well to avoid the whole issue, or move my money in another fashion. Or you know, I could take the whole amount and declare it.

I'm fine with the way forfeiture works generally. Yeah, the nature of anything designed with some threshold sucks when you are just barely over, but it isn't like this guy was ignorant. Apparently just inept.
 
2013-04-04 01:08:03 PM  

dready zim: FTA "$9,880 U.S."

10000-9880=120

C_Canuk: a declaration that is easier to fill out than calculate 20 bucks under the limit

It was 120. not 20. This should have been a safe margin. The argument you based upon a margin or $20 is now invalid.


$120 is 1.2% of the original $10K.  A 1.2% change in a currency exchange rate over a few days, or even overnight, is not unheard of.
 
2013-04-04 01:08:40 PM  

dready zim: mattharvest: dready zim: Are you really happy with saying that having over $10,000 itself is PROOF of criminal activity and so said monies should be confiscated?

Once more: the crime is failing to declare the money, not having it itself.  If he'd declared it, they would have investigated it with him and he'd likely have been fine.  It was the decision to break the law and fail to declare that created any issue.

Once more, his money was assumed to be the proceeds of crime. This assumption validated the confiscation. The proof of this is the money itself and nothing else. You are not talking about what I am and your reasoning is therefore erroneous.

If you persist in responding to me, yet not the topic I am talking about, then either you are really stupid or just trolling.

Either way you would still be wrong in this context.


Not quite.   The Governments in most nations have decided that 10,000 in local currency is something they want to look into.  You can make any arguments about this you like, and I might even agree with most of them.  That's not the issue under discussion.

To this end, laws have been passed saying you need to declare whether or not you have $10,000 crossing the border.

As I said earlier, thresholds are arbitrary.  That's how the law works.  27.9 g of Marijuana is simple possession.  28.1 g is trafficking.  It's arbitrary, but the implementation of the law is not.  It's binary.  You're over the limit or you're not.

He smuggled in over 10k in cash, and did not declare it.  The money was seized for that crime.  He's guilty.  Now, in the interest of fairness, the courts have said "We'll give you the money back if you can demonstrate where it came from."  NOTE:  The courts did not have to do this.  He's already guilty, and the penalty was forfeiture.

I can walk across the border with eleventy billion dollars in my pocket.  If I declare it, I'm fine. They can't seize it without probable cause. -- Although, I should expect a whole lot of sniffing around by the drug and tax people.

The point is here that he was trying to game the system and failed.  And paid the price.
 
2013-04-04 01:17:11 PM  
This is a depressing thread.

www.catster.com
 
2013-04-04 01:17:38 PM  
Also:  "Further, he said, the government was biased toward him because he has a criminal conviction from 1993. "  

Yeah, that's how a criminal record works. 

Now, that record is 20 years old.  He could have applied for and received a pardon after 5 years for a summary conviction, and 10 years for an indictable offense.  UNLESS you're a kiddy diddler or a three-time loser.

A pardon wipes your record from front line computers.
 
2013-04-04 01:25:41 PM  

mightybaldking: He could have applied for and received a pardon after 5 years for a summary conviction, and 10 years for an indictable offense.  UNLESS you're a kiddy diddler or a three-time loser.

A pardon wipes your record from front line computers.



Is that a Canadian thing or an American thing?
 
2013-04-04 01:28:06 PM  

WeenerGord: mightybaldking: He could have applied for and received a pardon after 5 years for a summary conviction, and 10 years for an indictable offense.  UNLESS you're a kiddy diddler or a three-time loser.

A pardon wipes your record from front line computers.


Is that a Canadian thing or an American thing?


Canadian thing, judging by the terms summary and indictable rather than misdemeanor and felony.
 
2013-04-04 01:29:14 PM  

WeenerGord: mightybaldking: He could have applied for and received a pardon after 5 years for a summary conviction, and 10 years for an indictable offense.  UNLESS you're a kiddy diddler or a three-time loser.

A pardon wipes your record from front line computers.


Is that a Canadian thing or an American thing?


costermonger: WeenerGord: mightybaldking: He could have applied for and received a pardon after 5 years for a summary conviction, and 10 years for an indictable offense.  UNLESS you're a kiddy diddler or a three-time loser.

A pardon wipes your record from front line computers.


Is that a Canadian thing or an American thing?

Canadian thing, judging by the terms summary and indictable rather than misdemeanor and felony.


Yeah, Canadian.
 
2013-04-04 01:31:39 PM  
So the assumption is that anyone who has a 20 year old conviction on record isn't eligible for a pardon.

And he cites a single conviction.   Which means he's a kiddy diddler.

A kiddy diddler taking 10,000 in cash to Costa Rica.

hmmmm.  I wonder exactly what's going on here.
 
2013-04-04 01:37:47 PM  

Pinhead Patriot: What if he had a stack of this?

[www.pennylicious.com image 397x447]


You can get yourself an army of garden gnomes!
 
2013-04-04 01:43:15 PM  
The justice system is just a organized con game for the established elite to enslave the masses.
 
2013-04-04 01:49:05 PM  

booger42: Pinhead Patriot: What if he had a stack of this?

[www.pennylicious.com image 397x447]

You can get yourself an army of garden gnomes!


Storm the border with your gnomes. Slip in under their radar!
 
2013-04-04 02:13:52 PM  

dready zim: FTA "$9,880 U.S."

10000-9880=120

C_Canuk: a declaration that is easier to fill out than calculate 20 bucks under the limit

It was 120. not 20. This should have been a safe margin. The argument you based upon a margin or $20 is now invalid.


FTA:
<i>Robert Docherty of Maple Ridge, B.C., knew any amount over $10,000 must be declared at the border when taking it out of Canada, and he purposely counted and calculated the exchange rate so the $9,880 U.S. and $335 Canadian he was packing were within that limit. </i>

The law is the total equivalent of 10,000 CAD. So it is whatever the 9,880 USD was when converted to CAD with the exchange rate plus the 335 CAD.

This happened in 2010, so we aren't sure what the exact exchange rate was at the time. But within a two day span the exchange rate likely would have only fluctuated a few cents on the dollar. He was obviously skirting very close to the limit.

Literally all you have to do to prevent this is fill out a form and hand it to the CBSA officials at the airport. It is a two page form and doesn't ask for any additional paperwork.
 
2013-04-04 03:21:38 PM  

ongbok: Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.

Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.


The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.
 
2013-04-04 03:35:46 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: ongbok: Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.

Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.

The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.


And when the cop pulls me over for driving too fast, I'll simply say "Prove that I don't have a license!  Prove that I don't have insurance!"
 
2013-04-04 03:36:46 PM  
In case people did not know.
Most of the times that the police/government steal money, house, car, while calling it 'proceeds of crime', is the victim does not challenge the theft.
Because the victims get terrorized into telling where the money came from or terrorized to have their ass kicked every time a cop sees them. Or worse, here comes the taxation department with a 10 years worth audit with the threat of jail time for anything found.

Sometimes the money is called proceeds of crime because the victim had one little baggie of pot, so the cops use that as proof of crime revenue. Its not enough for a conviction or to steal the money/car/home but fark the legal grounds anyways.

A court and a Judge who is not shilling, would have the government/police state proof that it is proceeds of crime.
No hard proof and the money goes back to the victim.

Simple law really.

To bad people have been made to be frightened of the police. A biker gang is more trustworthy, as they don't routinely kill people for shiats and giggles and roid rage. But don't fark them over on a deal and they are best buds.
 
2013-04-04 03:51:28 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.


Prove that taxes were not paid... that's easy his "business" deals only in cash why do you think that is?  Why wouldn't you accept checks or credit cards, I mean the machine to swipe a card is usually free with 50cent-75cent per transaction charge.
 
2013-04-04 04:11:46 PM  

mightybaldking: sweet-daddy-2: ongbok: Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.

Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.

The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.

And when the cop pulls me over for driving too fast, I'll simply say "Prove that I don't have a license!  Prove that I don't have insurance!"


I'm required by law to have a DL and insurance to operate a motor vehicle. If I stuff a $1,000 a year into a shoe box for twenty years, do you want me to prove it is not ill gotten gains?
 
2013-04-04 04:12:39 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: mightybaldking: sweet-daddy-2: ongbok: Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.

Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.

The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.

And when the cop pulls me over for driving too fast, I'll simply say "Prove that I don't have a license!  Prove that I don't have insurance!"

I'm required by law to have a DL and insurance to operate a motor vehicle. If I stuff a $1,000 a year into a shoe box for twenty years, do you want me to prove it is not ill gotten gains?


Only if you take it across the border.
 
2013-04-04 04:13:41 PM  

TNel: sweet-daddy-2: The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.

Prove that taxes were not paid... that's easy his "business" deals only in cash why do you think that is?  Why wouldn't you accept checks or credit cards, I mean the machine to swipe a card is usually free with 50cent-75cent per transaction charge.


You don't even need to do that. Plenty of places operate as a cash-only or primarily cash-driven business and are totally above board. Yeah, it does give you the opportunity to under declare your income but unless you aren't declaring ANYTHING from a business there will be a record of you owning said business and deriving income from it.

But a lot of that is besides the point anyway. All he had to do was NOT try and slide in just under the reporting limit. He could have taken as much as he wanted by filling out a really simple form and filing it with the CBSA on his way. That gets sent in to a database somewhere. It could trigger an investigation, but it is unlikely unless he also had irregularities in his income tax, etc that made it look suspicious.
 
2013-04-04 04:14:21 PM  

mightybaldking: sweet-daddy-2: mightybaldking: sweet-daddy-2: ongbok: Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.

Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.

The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.

And when the cop pulls me over for driving too fast, I'll simply say "Prove that I don't have a license!  Prove that I don't have insurance!"

I'm required by law to have a DL and insurance to operate a motor vehicle. If I stuff a $1,000 a year into a shoe box for twenty years, do you want me to prove it is not ill gotten gains?

Only if you take it across the border.


In an amount over $10K without declaring it.
 
2013-04-04 04:24:52 PM  

TNel: sweet-daddy-2: The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.

Prove that taxes were not paid... that's easy his "business" deals only in cash why do you think that is?  Why wouldn't you accept checks or credit cards, I mean the machine to swipe a card is usually free with 50cent-75cent per transaction charge.


There is a small burger joint, home owned, in my small town. They've been in business since before I was born ( 1949 ). To this day they have never accepted plastic and frown on even local checks. They maintain a thriving business in the face of competition from large  fast food franchises. Why don't you ask them?
I'll give you the phone number, if you wish. They don't have a web site, sorry.
 
2013-04-04 04:56:04 PM  

mightybaldking: sweet-daddy-2: mightybaldking: sweet-daddy-2: ongbok: Mr. Right: FTA:  "Individuals are free to arrange their affairs so as to leave the smallest possible financial footprint," wrote Justice J.D. Denis Pelletier, on behalf of the panel of appellate judges, last week. "The disadvantage of doing so is that when a question arises as to the source of large amounts of cash found in their possession, they have very few means of establishing the legitimacy of those funds.

That would be the same in the U.S.  If your income is not traceable through W-2 and 1099, you must be operating under the table and, therefore, illegal.  Just another way governments aim to track and ultimately control every aspect of your life.  If it isn't documented on a government form, it didn't legally happen.

Show that you paid taxes on it and you are in the clear. It is simple.

The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.

And when the cop pulls me over for driving too fast, I'll simply say "Prove that I don't have a license!  Prove that I don't have insurance!"

I'm required by law to have a DL and insurance to operate a motor vehicle. If I stuff a $1,000 a year into a shoe box for twenty years, do you want me to prove it is not ill gotten gains?

Only if you take it across the border.


So I want to party hard in a country where hookers and pot are legal and you want me to prove I'm not a criminal? Stuff it.
 
2013-04-04 06:15:05 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: TNel: sweet-daddy-2: The burden of proof rests on the government. Prove that taxes were not paid on it. Prove that it is dirty money.

Prove that taxes were not paid... that's easy his "business" deals only in cash why do you think that is?  Why wouldn't you accept checks or credit cards, I mean the machine to swipe a card is usually free with 50cent-75cent per transaction charge.

There is a small burger joint, home owned, in my small town. They've been in business since before I was born ( 1949 ). To this day they have never accepted plastic and frown on even local checks. They maintain a thriving business in the face of competition from large  fast food franchises. Why don't you ask them?
I'll give you the phone number, if you wish. They don't have a web site, sorry.


Then they would have proof of their cash business by daily logs that this guy does not have.
 
2013-04-04 06:47:38 PM  
I can't understand why the concept is so difficult.

I don't live in North America and every country has a similar rule (just got back from HK, Malaysia and Singapore to NZ, they all have something to this effect although the Malaysian one is a bit flakey). It doesn't matter whether it's a cent, a hundred cents, a hundred dollars or a hundred thousand dollars over the limit, if you declare it the legal requirement has been met and you can go on your merry way.

His crime is that he didn't declare it, it's the same with bringing four bottles of spirits in when you can only bring in three without declaration. If I bring four bottles of spirits in when NZ law says max 3x1.125L and advise I have nothing to declare, they will fine me well over what the spirits are worth or confiscate them if they find I had them (or both) because that's what has been set out.

If I declare it and say I've got four bottles I've always been told, "Okay, off you go." Although if I tried to bring in a crate they'd probably try and tax me because I'm importing goods to a value greater than the customs limit (which is $50 of GST worth of goods, around $400ish dollars).

This is to avoid people completing commercial transactions through private means outside of the established commercial laws, eg, I wear a $16k NZD(about 14KUSD) Rolex which would attract the GST due to its value but they don't care, if I brought a suitcase of about 200 in, which would easily be under the 30KG limit then it's likely for commercial purposes and skirting the tax that must be paid for commercial imports.

If he had declared it, they would have sent him on his merry way, but he broke the law, if you don't like the laws of the country then don't live in the country. Before doing that, though, go have a look at the state of the countries who don't enforce laws like that (think poor, violent and drug fuelled).

Now he has gone to the courts to say, yes he broke the law, I have learned my lesson, can I have an exception? (Which I have done to get off tickets for not having a Warrant of Fitness on my motorcycle). And in this case he hasn't provided any sort of a case, compassionate or logical, for getting the exception so the courts have said no. Much like I have been declined an exception on my ticket because I was actually just being lazy in not getting it.
 
2013-04-04 07:42:56 PM  
For those who skip to the images:

i.imgflip.com
 
2013-04-04 08:25:24 PM  

dready zim: FTA "$9,880 U.S."

10000-9880=120

C_Canuk: a declaration that is easier to fill out than calculate 20 bucks under the limit

It was 120. not 20. This should have been a safe margin. The argument you based upon a margin or $20 is now invalid.


Not at all.

It's only an invalid observation if it's a good deal less difficult to calculate $120 under the limit than $20 under the limit, or more difficult to fill out a declaration than calculate what amount of funds would fall 120 under the legal limit.

Now personally I find filling out a simple form stating that you are carrying a bunch of cash and explaining it's legit source, much more simple than calculating how much money I should be carrying to scrape under the limit, in advance based on a daily changing rate. I mean the financial market simulation alone would require some serious super computer time.

That is, unless the money isn't from a legit source, meaning that if an investigation is triggered by declaring the funds, as is required of all income for tax purposes, might result in a much stiffer sentence than confiscation of 10k, I think I might try what he was up to as well.  Probably at least 10% under the limit, I assume foresight is 20/20 for him in this case.

point being, you are trying very hard to ignore the fact that he got caught in a scheme, that was more complex and easier to avoid completely if he wasn't up to something.
 
2013-04-05 09:30:09 AM  

mightybaldking: He smuggled in over 10k in cash, and did not declare it. The money was seized for that crime.


How about no.

The money was seized because it was assumed to be the proceeds of crime and not the crime of taking it across the border.

The crime that the money was assumed to be the proceeds of was not stated and the only proof of that crime was the existence of the money.

Either you should have to declare ALL money when passing a border or if there is a limit there should be no punishment for trying to be under it.

All of you saying he deserved this deserve the KGB to break down your door and `disappear` you because they assumed you were guilty of an unspecified crime because it is the same logical standpoint, being that the government can just do what it wants because `terrorists or something and just shut up`.

Why don`t you just give the government your front door key while you are at it? If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from officials just walking into your home and rifling through your stuff...

land of the free my arse.
 
2013-04-05 09:37:47 AM  

C_Canuk: you are trying very hard to ignore the fact that he got caught in a scheme, that was more complex and easier to avoid completely if he wasn't up to something.


And you are trying to validate the confiscation of money with no other proof than its existence. What he was `up to` was trying to do as much as he could whilst staying within the boundaries of the law and because he did this you say he deserved to have a $10,000 fine? Should people trying to drive just under the speed limit get tickets?

really?

I bet you miss McCarthyism.
 
2013-04-05 10:06:58 AM  
Ok. To illustrate the ludicrousness of this, if we have a hypothetical situation where the guy calculates he has less than $10,000, gets on the plane and flies but while in the air the exchange rate changes and when he lands he has more than $10,000 but is unaware.

What does your sense of justice say about whether he has committed a crime? (I am not asking for your literal interpretation of the current law)

I assume you DO have a sense of justice don`t you?
 
2013-04-05 10:42:56 AM  

dready zim: Ok. To illustrate the ludicrousness of this, if we have a hypothetical situation where the guy calculates he has less than $10,000, gets on the plane and flies but while in the air the exchange rate changes and when he lands he has more than $10,000 but is unaware.

What does your sense of justice say about whether he has committed a crime? (I am not asking for your literal interpretation of the current law)

I assume you DO have a sense of justice don`t you?


What's wrong with declaring it?  If you have to take the time to make sure you are under the limit by .2% then something's going on.  Nobody does that.  If he wanted to be safe he should have went with a great percent cushion.  He lied about declaring it.  If he would have put $10k they would have stamped it and moved on, even if he didn't have the 10k they wouldn't make you pull it out and count it they would say thanks have a nice trip.
 
2013-04-05 12:11:10 PM  

dready zim: mightybaldking: He smuggled in over 10k in cash, and did not declare it. The money was seized for that crime.

How about no.

The money was seized because it was assumed to be the proceeds of crime and not the crime of taking it across the border.

The crime that the money was assumed to be the proceeds of was not stated and the only proof of that crime was the existence of the money.

Either you should have to declare ALL money when passing a border or if there is a limit there should be no punishment for trying to be under it.

All of you saying he deserved this deserve the KGB to break down your door and `disappear` you because they assumed you were guilty of an unspecified crime because it is the same logical standpoint, being that the government can just do what it wants because `terrorists or something and just shut up`.

Why don`t you just give the government your front door key while you are at it? If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from officials just walking into your home and rifling through your stuff...

land of the free my arse.


He tried to sneak in under the limit and failed, he may have not intended to commit a criminal act, but he did. There is no requirement for intent in the law. He isn't being punished for trying to be under the limit, he is being punished for not being under the limit and failing, thereby committing a crime. Yes the threshold is set under a law meant to deter money laundering and financing of terrorism.

All he had to do was sign a form that has a few personal details on it and the amount of cash he was taking out of the country. That's it.

dready zim: Ok. To illustrate the ludicrousness of this, if we have a hypothetical situation where the guy calculates he has less than $10,000, gets on the plane and flies but while in the air the exchange rate changes and when he lands he has more than $10,000 but is unaware.

What does your sense of justice say about whether he has committed a crime? (I am not asking for your literal interpretation of the current law)

I assume you DO have a sense of justice don`t you?


I think it sucks. I have sympathy for people who inadvertently break a law without realizing it... to an extent. But I don't have much sympathy for what I would call criminal stupidity. This really isn't a difficult law to not break. If currency is fluctuating THAT much you really ought to leave yourself more of a buffer OR just play it safe and declare it. There is no prohibition, in most countries, of moving large amounts of currency across the border but if you are doing so you need to make a relevant declaration. People do it all the time for reasons mentioned in this thread, like buying used vehicles, etc. But they also do the VERY simple paperwork associated with it.
 
2013-04-05 01:25:53 PM  

entropic_existence: I think it sucks. I have sympathy for people who inadvertently break a law without realizing it... to an extent. But I don't have much sympathy for what I would call criminal stupidity. This really isn't a difficult law to not break. If currency is fluctuating THAT much you really ought to leave yourself more of a buffer OR just play it safe and declare it. There is no prohibition, in most countries, of moving large amounts of currency across the border but if you are doing so you need to make a relevant declaration. People do it all the time for reasons mentioned in this thread, like buying used vehicles, etc. But they also do the VERY simple paperwork associated with it.


I think it sucks too, especially if his money was legally earned and he had every right to keep it and they took it anyway. If I were this guy I would be mad at myself for not thinking of bringing a smart phone and checking the exchange rate just before going through. If he saw he was going to be 60 or 80 bucks over, he would have been better off to give that much money away to some stranger, or buy something.

But what I want to know is, why NOT just declare it? Why did he seek not to declare it? Did he not want to get on a watch list of some kind, like does he take 10K over the border every two weeks and didn't want a record of that? was he hiding money from an ex? Does declaring cash put you on a list that thieves and spammers and credit card companies can buy and send you spam letters and stake out your house to burgle?

Why would anyone seek to have the max amount and NOT declare it? For what reason?
 
2013-04-05 01:52:23 PM  

WeenerGord: entropic_existence: I think it sucks. I have sympathy for people who inadvertently break a law without realizing it... to an extent. But I don't have much sympathy for what I would call criminal stupidity. This really isn't a difficult law to not break. If currency is fluctuating THAT much you really ought to leave yourself more of a buffer OR just play it safe and declare it. There is no prohibition, in most countries, of moving large amounts of currency across the border but if you are doing so you need to make a relevant declaration. People do it all the time for reasons mentioned in this thread, like buying used vehicles, etc. But they also do the VERY simple paperwork associated with it.

I think it sucks too, especially if his money was legally earned and he had every right to keep it and they took it anyway. If I were this guy I would be mad at myself for not thinking of bringing a smart phone and checking the exchange rate just before going through. If he saw he was going to be 60 or 80 bucks over, he would have been better off to give that much money away to some stranger, or buy something.

But what I want to know is, why NOT just declare it? Why did he seek not to declare it? Did he not want to get on a watch list of some kind, like does he take 10K over the border every two weeks and didn't want a record of that? was he hiding money from an ex? Does declaring cash put you on a list that thieves and spammers and credit card companies can buy and send you spam letters and stake out your house to burgle?

Why would anyone seek to have the max amount and NOT declare it? For what reason?


You wouldn't even need to check it right before crossing the border, they wouldn't be using whatever the up to the second exchange rate is, but whatever the bank/airport oficial rate for the day is. So you could check that morning or whatever and it should be fine. But trying to skirt that close to the limit, while being under, is dumb at the very least.

There are really only a few reasons to not just take, say 10K or more, and declare it. One is the person is law abiding but a complete paranoid nutter, in which case I wonder how they mustered up the courage to get a passport and decide to fly to Costa Rica in the first place. The second is that they are law abiding but slightly paranoid because while they got the money legally, they have no way to really prove it. Declaring the cash probably wouldn't trigger an investigation (which would happen long after the trip, they would successfully cross the border with the money) but it might. The other two reasons both involve criminal activity of some sort. Either intending to do something illegal with the money although the money was obtained legally, so they don't want a record or the money is ill-gotten in the first place.

It is dead easy to just declare it. Sure it gets entered into FINTRAC, and if you have other irregularities the info could trigger a CRA or RCMP investigation, but chances are it just sits there in the database. Either way the guy's intent and source of money aren't very relevant. He tried to avoid the declaration limit, failed, and ended up breaking a law he was well aware of.
 
2013-04-05 04:35:14 PM  

dready zim: C_Canuk: you are trying very hard to ignore the fact that he got caught in a scheme, that was more complex and easier to avoid completely if he wasn't up to something.

And you are trying to validate the confiscation of money with no other proof than its existence.


Nope, I'm not trying to validate anything, Just stating that he broke a law he was well aware of.

What he was `up to` was trying to do as much as he could whilst staying within the boundaries of the law and because he did this you say he deserved to have a $10,000 fine?

He didn't get a 10000 dollar fine, he had proceeds of a crime confiscated. Then when provided 2 opportunities to have his criminal behaviour pardoned failed to produce the paper trail that all legitimate sources of money are required by law to provide.

Should people trying to drive just under the speed limit get tickets?


If I was speeding I would pay the ticket, The law is specific, If I knew I could get away with doing 9 over, and my speedometer was inaccurate resulting in me doing 10 over, I still committed the crime, I still have to pay the fine. I doubt I'd get two chances in court to prove I wasn't intentionally doing 10 over, after admitting I was trying to do 9. Nor would I have the opportunity to have the ticket thrown out if I could prove I wasn't engaging in any other criminal behaviour

really?

Yes really.

If his money was legitimately obtained there is zero reason he could not submit proof.  none, there is legally no way for someone to gain that much undocumented cash. It isn't possible.

I bet you miss McCarthyism.

Nope, cause in that case they would use this as probable cause to seize his assets, black list him and/or jail him. I'm fine with the smuggled assets seized as penalty for deliberately not declaring them.

This is no different than the confiscation of any other undeclared good that will be confiscated if it's over the allowed undeclared limit. Booze, smokes, chocolate, fruit, etc.

His crime was carrying more cash undeclared than is allowed, full stop.

He's guilty, it's a known law, he was aware of it, and if the cash was legitimate there would have been a paper trail allowing him to have his crime waived after the fact. He failed to produce the paper trail that is automatically required to be generated at every node in the financial system by law.
 
2013-04-05 06:09:33 PM  
Also the monetary declaration at the 10K mark is because 10K is a large enough cash figure to be economically relevant for statistical purposes without affecting the general populace, just rare cases.

It would be uneconomical to have a paper trail for the 40c in someone's pocket, as well as considerably slow processing times in already congested airports. 10K+ on the other hand would be a reasonable line to draw for both tracking the flow of cash (FDI, Foreign Reserves, Money Flowing in and out) as it would barely inconvenience the populace as it's a very select few affected as well as being a reasonable value to be economically relevant.

Money flowing electronically are automatically recorded for this purpose, it's not taxed but small fees are charged by the banks themselves for the service thus declarations are not necessary.
 
2013-04-06 01:54:12 AM  

dready zim: mightybaldking: He smuggled in over 10k in cash, and did not declare it. The money was seized for that crime.

How about no.

The money was seized because it was assumed to be the proceeds of crime and not the crime of taking it across the border.

The crime that the money was assumed to be the proceeds of was not stated and the only proof of that crime was the existence of the money.

Either you should have to declare ALL money when passing a border or if there is a limit there should be no punishment for trying to be under it.

All of you saying he deserved this deserve the KGB to break down your door and `disappear` you because they assumed you were guilty of an unspecified crime because it is the same logical standpoint, being that the government can just do what it wants because `terrorists or something and just shut up`.

Why don`t you just give the government your front door key while you are at it? If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from officials just walking into your home and rifling through your stuff...

land of the free my arse.


He should have just declared it. That was the crime, he didn't declare it.,

By the way, this happened in Canada.
 
Displayed 152 of 152 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report