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 152
    More: Stupid, Bank of Canada, detector dog, exchange rates, borders, Pearson International Airport, Federal Court of Appeal  
•       •       •

14886 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 6:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

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