Could You Be the Next Innocent American to Have Your Bank Account Seized by the Government?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/could-you-be-next-innocent-american-have-your-bank-account-seized-government



You may be innocent, but that doesn’t mean a federal agent can’t grab your money and property at will — and keep it without any consequences.

The Internal Revenue Service is supposed to go after criminals who launder money or people who cheat on their taxes, but lately, agents have been going after ordinary Americans who have been accused of nothing, nada, zilch. Bewildered citizens are having their bank accounts seized and forking over thousands of dollars in legal fees to try to combat this gross violation of their rights — let’s just call it outright theft — often to no avail.

You could be next.

IRS agents have been on a spree targeting citizens for the simple act of making deposits of less than $10,000 at a time. They are doing so using a pernicious and controversial area of law called civil asset forfeiture. This law basically lets agents grab your property if they suspect you being tied to crime, even if no criminal charges are filed.

Bonus for law enforcement agencies: They keep a chunk of whatever is forfeited.

The New York Times reports:

“Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.”

[hobbit709]

1. The Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper.

[840high]

76. This makes me very sad.

[woo me with science]

2. We are ruled by thieves and criminals.

[Enthusiast]

3. That appears to be the case.

[hobbit709]

4. Remember this bumper sticker?

"Don't steal, the government hates competition"

[Enthusiast]

5. I have never seen that one.

[TBF]

9. ^ this. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

6. I can fairly safely say they wouldn't want mine

Basically nothing is in it.

[TheKentuckian]

7. No problem, they can just grab ours before the rent and utilities come out.

[TorchTheWitch]

11. aren't we just so fortunate?

Seriously, I've been so paranoid about losing my money by having it in a bank through either the bank or the government that since I started making any money I could bank back in 2003 most of my money I don't put in there. Don't make any interest on it anyway.

Of course, since losing my job and not being able to get another one all of it's gone. Now what little money I have I sure as hell don't have in the bank. Just my luck if my account was seized taking the paltry amount I had left to live on before ending up in a cardboard box on the street.

Years ago the bank let some company steal money out of my account every month without my knowledge or permission. All they need is the account number and the router number and they can take any amount they want electronically. No signature or check or swipe from a bank card from me. Needless to say, I was horrified. Though they did clear a bounced "check" fine that was no check when they tried to steal more money than I had in there the only way to stop them was to PAY THE BANK $20 to fill out a form for every entity that was stealing the money. Whoever this company was was clever in having four different company names stealing my money, so I had to pay the bank $20 to fill out a form for each one for a total of $80.

I couldn't even close the account and open a new one and put my money in the new one because according to the bank a closed account automatically reopens whenever it gets hit by someone trying to take money out of it, and since there's no money in a closed account the bank also charges you a bounced check fee. What. The. Fuck.

Needless to say I closed the account, paid $80 to fill out each one of their forms and took my meager funds to another bank. Doesn't matter though because as far as I can tell this is regular banking practice. The bank even told me that it says all this right in your contract you first sign with the bank when you open an account with them. HA! I showed them on my bank contract from decades ago this was not on it because there was no such thing as electronic checks then. The bank said that they should have sent a letter about the new banking rules ("should have" not "did&quot which I know they never did because I read every single thing the bank sends and have forever.

Nothing anyone can do about this either. You either suffer with these electronic banking schemes where no check and no signature of yours is needed by anyone stealing money out of your account with only the account number and the router number and the bank stealing money from you to make it stop or stuff your mattress. I'm not exactly stuffing my mattress, but I never keep anything more in the bank than what needs to be there to pay bills and keep the account open.

[classykaren]

8. My son heard us talking about this last night and just told us when he went to put money on his pre

pay debt card that he bought at a drug store . They asked him for id since they never asked him for that before. He asked why. Teller told him new law in effect because of drug money laundering. We only use these type of cards for buying off the internet . Once you have your account hacked once or twice these cards seemed like a good thing. When are they going after the money hiding in the Bahamas?

[closeupready]

25. I got something better - Chase will NOT let you deposit money

in a bank account if the account is not your account (UNLESS you are named by the account owner as an authorized depositor). Talk about What. The. Fuck. ??

I'm not even talking about putting suspicious deposits on hold - right in Midtown Manhattan, they will not let you deposit even $100 in a friend's account, for example, as a birthday gift, or to pay back a cash loan.

[KatyaR]

30. My bank won't give you a roll of quarters

without a bank account and photo ID. WTF?

[closeupready]

37. I bank mostly long-distance now.

Bypassing most of this stupid nonsense by banking online.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. A variation of that happened to me.

I had transferred my savings account from Cal. to a bank here when I moved back in 2005.
Also had a healthy hunk of money in the checking account to use as a down payment on the house.
So, we bought the house, writing checks from the checking account, but leaving the savings account alone.
18 months later, get a letter from the IRS, wanting to tax the savings as earned income.
The very same pot of money that had sat for a few years in a Cal. bank with no problem suddenly became earned income in a new bank,
even tho the money had been directly transferred between banks.

Had to hire an accountant to deal with the problem, it went away.
He said IRS had been sending out those letters for about a year, and some people just sent a check in for the amount the IRS said was due,
rather than fight the IRS.
He also said the bank had to have reported my savings account to them, which is how they knew to send the letter. because the bank reports deposits OVER 10,000 as well as under 10,00..essentially ALL deposits.
It is part of the "Know Your Customer" scheme ( google this phrase, I did, it is eye opening).
The banks now serve as spies on your account activity.

Which is why we now have only a month's worth of bill paying money in the bank.

Sounds like now the Feds are upping their rip off game.

[HoosierCowboy]

12. July 1, 2014 Notice something different at your bank?

Take out cash now and the money comes out of a special machine. Every serial number is recorded and when it comes back into the banking system that's recorded. So if you happen to be a business owner who had recieved cash from a drug dealer that bought a Slurpee with drug money, you're screwed.
This is supposed to eliminate the hazards associated with conventional drug enforcement, Swat Teams, flash bang grenades, shooting innocent people's dogs, etc. But it just might cause a lot of social unrest as a side effect.

The 100 million dollar money laudering bust in the garment district in L.A. was probably a product of this effort. In that case, law enforcement had to go in and actually seize the cash.

This will probably work for a while until the ensuing political rucus and other ways are found to go around it.

[tridim]

14. That's a king sized load of FUD you posted.

Do you have a link for the Slurpee arrests?

[HoosierCowboy]

16. No need to make arrests..

...trials, lawyers, due process. The biggest losers in all of this have to be defense lawyers, who would normally get some of the money as part of the process.

[HoosierCowboy]

20. Try to find this post on DU right now..

...it only took about 10 minutes for this thread to disappear from Trending Now . That ought ot tell you something

[VScott]

34. Only a matter of time before every bill has a bar code or QR code

(starting with $100.00 bills), and they'll be scanned into the system at the points of use.

[HoosierCowboy]

44. No need to get that complicated

Every Bill has a number..and every ATM and cashier station has a reader. Take money out and put money in. It's hooked up the computer that controls your account. Now every bills serial number can be traced to who brought it in and who took it out.
Cashiers at banks no longer have to worry about being over or under count, because the banks computer now counts the money. This type of system has been in place for where illegal drug activity has been high, now it's mandatory.

[bemildred]

13. The late Roman empire became very keptocratic too, trying to keep things patched together militarily

I wonder if the IRS has quotas yet where agents have to bring so much in?

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Posted to for later. eom.

[SheilaT]

17. I thought the law was they only had to report

cash transactions MORE than $10,000.

[Arugula Latte]

21. Yes, and they're supposed to file a SAR

(Suspicious Activity Report) if something seems amiss.

[Man from Pickens]

58. and if you deposit less than $10,000....

... that's considered evading the reporting requirement, which is a crime also.

In other words, you can't deposit cash at a bank without becoming a suspect.

[fasttense]

18. This goes hand and hand with the IRS

Backing off from prosecuting corporate tax criminals. If the government is not getting revenue from the biggest pot of money, than they have to take more from the smallest. If the IRS would actually hold corporations accountable, than they wouldn't be so desperate to get the little guy by hook or by crook.

[closeupready]

26. Yup.

[BlindTiresias]

63. Identical problem before the French Revolution

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. Mafia rule.

Wherever the bushes are criminality follows close behind.

[fadedrose]

22. Making deposits of less than $10,000

to avoid explaining where you got it....not a problem.

Any deposits other than the monthly SS check are welcome to the government's scrutiny. And I think there are a lot of us... unless there's a lottery win in the mix.

[jeff47]

23. We look more and more like the Teabaggers every day.

What's actually going on:
Deposits and withdrawals of cash in excess of $10,000 have to be reported to the Treasury department, in an attempt to thwart money laundering.

So what did money launderers do? Start making deposits under $10,000 to avoid reporting. It's called structuring.

So what did the government do in response? Make it illegal to structure your deposits to avoid the reporting requirement.

So your business has $12,000 in cash to deposit. What do you do?
Option 1) Deposit it as one $12,000 deposit. There's an extra form that has to be filled out. Perfectly legal, and they aren't going to come for your money.
Option 2) Deposit it as one $6,000 deposit in your day-to-day expenses checking account, and $6,000 in your long-term savings account. No form required, and still legal - you aren't avoiding the reporting requirement, you're using the money for two different purposes.
Option 3) Deposit it as two $6,000 deposits in one account because Ba'al the Soul-Eater will destroy you if you deposit more than $6,000 at once. No form to fill out, and thanks to the Hobby Lobby decision your business can now have religious beliefs.
Option 4) Deposit it as two $6,000 deposits in one account so that you don't have to fill out the form. This option is the one that's illegal, because you're doing it to avoid the reporting requirements.

Also, if your business regularly deposits more than $10,000 in cash (ex. Supermarkets), you can get an exemption from the Treasury. The limit for you will be set higher, based on your regular deposits. And again, it's a reporting requirement. If your supermarket has a great day and you deposit way more than normal, then there is an additional form to fill out. As long as you file that form, the evil government stormtroopers won't be "stealing all your money".

But reality isn't nearly as inflammatory. So we get articles like this that leave all those pesky details out and scream "EVIL GOVERNMENT OUT GO GET YOU!!!!!!!!!". But it gets lots of clicks, and thus ad revenue. And since those advertisers aren't paying in cash, the web site doesn't have to worry about these civil forfeiture laws.

Btw, civil forfeiture is why "without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes". Crimes go to the criminal justice system, and are associated with jail time. This is a civil forfeiture. Which means it's not a crime. Just like the city can seize your house if you don't pay your property taxes, but won't throw you in prison for it - not paying your property taxes is not a crime, it's a civil action (in most jurisdictions).

But no, it's all the evil government out to destroy our proud, bootstrap-pulling business owners. Hey, why should the teabaggers do all the work of destroying all government regulations? Might as well get the liberals to help!

[Yupster]

27. I don't know what you are saying here?

Are you saying this is okay for the IRS to seize the money a deli has deposited in its business bank account because they routinely deposit less than $ 10,000 without charging them with any crime?

You're not saying that are you?

[tkmorris]

28. That is precisely what he is saying

[jeff47]

29. I'm saying that this article is written to enrage you so that you'll fight government regulation

It accomplishes that enraging by leaving out the details of what the law actually requires. The law requires filling out a form. And it also requires showing some evidence that the deposits were structuring to a judge before the money can be seized. The government does not get to take the money because they felt like it. A court order is required, and can be challenged.

The story also leaves out details like the difference between a crime and a civil action. That way it can scream "WITHOUT CHARGING THEM WITH ANY CRIME!!!!!". In our day-to-day usage, crime is anything illegal. But there's lots of things that are illegal that aren't crimes - speeding isn't a crime in most states, for example.

You still get a ticket, and are still required to pay. But you won't be going before a jury, nor sent to prison, because it isn't a crime. If you don't pay the ticket, then you'll be charged with a crime. But the crime will be failure to pay the ticket, not speeding.

So why write this article? Well, the author tries to turn it back to bankers, but that's completely irrelevant - the law in question is only about cash. Wire transfers that the author decries aren't covered by the law at hand because they aren't cash.

On the other hand, it is an excellent article to get people to push for removing government regulations on banks. Heck, take out the banker paragraph and you can publish the exact same article on a Teabagger site, to get the same results.

[KT2000]

32. It's how things really work

Regulatory agencies target the little guy, which keeps the populace angry with them. Meanwhile the huge corporations get away with murder, having the little guy doing all of his fighting.
The EPA works this way too. They will go after the farmer that dumps manure but grease the skids for mills pouring dioxin and sulfuric acid over a town.

Yes - the article was written to enrage but the activities of the agencies are directed at the less powerful. Corporations have the money to fight - the little guy does not.

[jeff47]

33. And those corporations fight by publishing articles like this

or helping to get them published.

[Comrade Grumpy]

41. You mean evil corporations like the Washington Post?

"Stop and seize--Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

"Another Civil Forfeiture Outrage"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/03/another-civil-asset-forfeiture-outrage/

"Government Self-Interest Corrupted a Crime-Fighting Tool into an Evil"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/abolish-the-civil-asset-forfeiture-program-we-helped-create/2014/09/18/72f089ac-3d02-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

...I could go on. The heat is rising on this issue.

[jeff47]

42. Yep. Didja forget their cheerleading for Iraq

and other corporate-friendly coverage?

[Comrade Grumpy]

47. I don't know what their Iraq reporting has to do with their asset forfeiture reporting.

Arguing that the Post is reporting on asset forfeiture abuse because of its corporate interests is a bit of a stretch, I think.

I don't thinks it's cops pulling corporations over on the highway and stealing their money (under the federal Equitable Sharing program).

I don't that lady with the Mexican restaurant in Iowa is a powerful corporate entity.

Or those gamblers in Iowa.

Or those gamblers in Nevada.

This is a program that just begs for abuse.

[jeff47]

50. It's a demonstration that they are slanting their coverage.

Arguing that the Post is reporting on asset forfeiture abuse because of its corporate interests is a bit of a stretch, I think

Yeah, they would have no interest in more banking deregulation.

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. I don't need the Post to be unhappy with asset forfeiture abuse. It's just MORE evidence.

What is this continued crap about banking deregulation? This is about the government taking your money. Not the banks' money.

[jeff47]

55. So why'd you bring them up?

You brought up the Post. Why do that if you don't need them?

What is this continued crap about banking deregulation?

The people talking about this are demanding the law be repealed. That a banking regulation should be repealed. The literal definition of banking deregulation.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Bank regulations my ass. This is individual finance control and the spin is absurd

The banks own their supposed regulators and they have run fucking wild for years and now folks want to hide behind them to clean out working people? Absolutely disgusting and lacking decency.

That is the Turd Way for you, say ANYTHING to screw the little guy and cover, wipe, and dangle for the corporations and the banks b you socializing their responsibilities to poor and working class people. All some folks seem interested in is destroying faith in a government by and for the people. Maybe that isn't the intent here but it is the effect, this kind of thing will net zero love whatsoever.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. The big corps love policies like this because they use it to crush smaller competitors. nt

[jeff47]

57. Really. You think filing one form is going to destroy your local credit union.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. What?

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. Asset forfeiture abuse is a real problem.

Yeah, it pisses off the tea party people. It pisses me off, too. Let's not leave a fix to the right wing.

[jeff47]

40. That would require actually proposing a fix.

Which never happens in any of these articles. Instead, the only thing is "look how bad this is!!!". Implying the fix is to get rid of these regulations completely.

Heck, take a look at this thread. How many proposed fixes do you see that are not essentially "repeal the law"?

[Comrade Grumpy]

45. HR 5502, HR 5512

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr5502

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr5212

At a minimum, the law needs to be reformed so that no seizures can take place without a criminal conviction.

These bills are sponsored by Republicans. Where are the Democrats?

[jeff47]

49. And those are "repeal the law" bills.

Meaning your fix is more banking deregulation and making structuring legal.

At a minimum, the law needs to be reformed so that no seizures can take place without a criminal conviction.

So I cover my money laundering enterprise by depositing and withdrawing in $9,000 batches. Denying you the evidence you need for a criminal conviction. I'm sure that'll show the banks who's boss!!!!

How 'bout we require the pseudo-defendant be allowed to challenge the forfeiture at the hearing, with the government supplying an attorney if requested by the pseudo-defendant? Meanwhile we also fund our public defender system properly so they are able to do their job.

[Comrade Grumpy]

52. HR 5202 doesn't repeal the law; it raises the burden of proof on the government.

This isn't about the freaking banks. It's about the government seizing your money.

Money laundering is a crime. Investigate suspected money laundering, file charges if you think you have a case. Get a conviction. Then take the money.

Allowing free legal counsel for "defendants" in asset forfeiture hearings would sometimes be helpful (sometimes unnecessary, I imagine). It's kind of hard to hire a lawyer when the government took your money. Without convicting you of anything.

I'm all for an adequately-funded public defender system, too.

There are too many solid cases of asset forfeiture abuse. Beyond the IRS, it's basically policing for profit. Cops do end runs around state laws that put seizures in the general fund by using the Equitable Sharing program. Then they get 80% of the booty. The cops. Not the general fund. Not the schools. The cops. So they can buy more toys and make more seizures and buy more toys and make more seizures and buy more toys and make more seizures. It's a fucking racket.

I guess we'll let the Republicans have this issue.

[KingCharlemagne]

60. Um, IANAL, but 'speeding' is most definitely a crime: a misdemeanor. That

means, at least in California, that one receives a summons (the 'ticket') that requires either an appearance in court (where one might actually plead 'not guilty' to the alleged offense) or some other disposition of the charged misdemeanor. When one "pays the ticket," one is disposing of the case by either pleading guilty to the offense or nolo contendre (not sure which).

In California, misdemeanors can result in jail sentences but not in prison sentences which are reserved for the more serious species of crimes: felonies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. +1 ...

written to inflame those that know very little about the banking system.

What the "article" doesn't indicate is BEFORE any money is "seized", Treasury looks at the transaction(s) and looks for patterns and anomalies (based on profiling), e.g., the 3 cow "dairy farm owner" that regularly (weekly) deposits $9,999, with no other visible means of support ... will probably merit a closer look; the "Army Guy", saving for a college fund, probably not ... unless his deposits are unsupported by his pay.

{sigh ... }

[Ykcutnek]

36. Facts are always getting in the way of two-minute hate sessions against 'BIG GUBMINT' nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

48. Let 'em steal your money. I bet you'd be singing a different tune.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:07 PM - Edit history (1)

[appal_jack]

75. I posted some facts about the US Constitution below (#71 & #74).

Do you care to argue anything, or are insults and insinuations the 'facts' you prefer?

The facts of the matter are that the entire field of Civil Asset Forfeiture is a kleptocratic, anti-democratic, unconstitutional clusterfuck.

-app

[Gormy Cuss]

61. A lot of people do not understand that it's limited to *cash* or cash-like deposits

And it sounds like many are unaware that cash businesses like restaurants are enterprises used to launder money.

That said, the 10K threshold was set decades ago when that was a more significant amount. In today's dollars it should probably be transactions over 20K.

[appal_jack]

71. The Fifth Amendment is NOT exclusively about criminal matters.

Amendment V

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There are bits in-between about processes relating to criminal indictments and trials, but the Fifth Amendment serves as a restriction on what government may and may not do under any and all circumstances. Saying that something is a civil matter does not exempt the government from abiding by Fifth Amendment protections.

Demanding that the government abide by the Constitution is good citizenship. Save the Teabagging accusations for idiots who can't spell Medicare properly on signs saying that the gubmint needs to get their hands off it.


-app

[jeff47]

73. The fifth amendment requires due process. Due process happened

The government took their evidence to court and got a court order to seize the money. That satisfies the fifth amendment.

Demanding that the government abide by the Constitution is good citizenship. Save the Teabagging accusations for idiots who can't spell Medicare properly on signs saying that the gubmint needs to get their hands off it.

How 'bout for the people who think the fifth amendment requires a jury trial for all government action?

[appal_jack]

74. You have a Kafkaesque definition of "Due Process."

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Not very Democratic to say that the whim of a (likely bought & paid for) judge constitutes due process in any meaningful way.

And then there's this tripe from you:

How 'bout for the people who think the fifth amendment requires a jury trial for all government action?

Teabaggers may or may not think that about the Fifth (you'd have to ask a few), but I know that the requirement for jury trials resides in the Seventh Amendment:

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Do try to keep up.

-app

[jeff47]

78. Is it Democratic to go with the whim of a jury?

It's not like there's a history of juries providing biased convictions. Say, in the south.

Again, not a criminal matter. I really don't know why you think insisting it wasn't treated as a criminal matter is relevant.

[appal_jack]

79. Take it up with the Founding Fathers, and Congress.

78. Is it Democratic to go with the whim of a jury?

It's certainly a Constitutional requirement. Plus, it's harder to corrupt 12 citizens than it is one judge.

If you believe that the government should be properly able to seize individuals' property without a jury conviction, feel free to organize to repeal the 5th and 7th Amendments. Otherwise, admit that your preferences are tyrannical and unamerican.

-app

[modem77]

24. Yet the banksters wire millions out of country to offshore accounts and is perfectly ok

Something really fucked up about that. I guess it is just easier to screw the little guy because he seldom fights back.

[CrispyQ]

31. They want it all, folks.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

They won't be satisfied until they have every last fucking dime.

[Ykcutnek]

35. I don't make enough money to grab the attention of the IRS.

I have long thought they don't have enough teeth to enforce our tax code.

So if this will be used against possible evaders and other criminals, more power to them.

[Comrade Grumpy]

39. You mean like the lady with the Mexican restaurant in Iowa?

From whom the IRS stole $33,000?

That was an abuse, and the various asset forfeiture programs of the federal government are rife with abuse.

[Skidmore]

43. So have any of our lawmakers said anything about this?

[HoosierCowboy]

46. Congressman John Conyers:

We don't read what we vote on...

[justice1]

51. The article failed to mention that she is the defendant in a court case, filed by the government.

[Comrade Grumpy]

54. Has she been convicted of anything? If not, why is the government stealing her hard-earned money?

[Ikonoklast]

67. Because structuring cash deposits is a crime, and the money is seized before the person charged

can move it elsewhere.

The restaurant owner thought she was doing the bank and herself a favor by not having to fill out any extra paperwork be keeping her deposits below the reporting limit, when every time she structured a cash deposit so it stayed below the $10K threshold she broke the law.

[freshwest]

62. That's an important omission.

[woo me with science]

65. kick

[woo me with science]

68. kick

[woo me with science]

69. kick

[woo me with science]

70. kick

[L0oniX]

72. So uh HBSC only paid a fine for laundering drug money but if you are John Smith then you get fucked.

[Politicalboi]

77. Hey IRS

I bought coke from Koch. Please take it ALL.