Dennis Hastert aside, it shouldn't be a crime to take your own money out of the bank

[DefenseLawyer]

without the government' s knowledge and approval. Another part of the Patriot Act that needs to go. Of course Hastert rushed to put the Patriot Act on all of us, and you know, sorry buddy, but the law's the law; but in the big picture that's a ridiculous, fascist law.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Currency Transaction Reports have been around a lot longer than

the Patriot Act - but agree with your point. And as a banker, I know banks would be ecstatic if
they were gone.

When the first version of the CTR was introduced, the only way a suspicious transaction less than $10,000 was reported to the government was if a bank teller called law enforcement. This was primarily due to the financial industry's concern about the right to financial privacy. On October 26, 1986, with the passage of the Money Laundering Control Act, the right to financial privacy was no longer an issue. As part of the Act, Congress had stated that a financial institution could not be held liable for releasing suspicious transactional information to law enforcement. As a result, the next version of the CTR had a suspicious transaction check box at the top. This was in effect until April 1996 when the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) was introduced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report

[MH1]

17. And $10,000 was a lot more back then.

Just pointing out that due to inflation, the real value that triggers scrutiny is lower today than when the law was passed.

[DawgHouse]

61. That is true!

[arcane1]

51. One less thing to be annoyingly tested on every year.

I work for a bank, and even though I couldn't possibly do anything illegal with money, everyone has to take those damn tests to make sure they understand money laundering rules. So I get quizzed on how tellers are supposed to handle transactions, even though I'm in IT and have nothing to do with any of it

[KittyWampus]

2. Ah, so you are pro-money laundering. And this has been true for longer than the Patriot Act.

Despite the erroneous posts on DU about the topic.

Haven't you seen that info corrected multiple times by now?

[Jesus Malverde]

21. Pro money laundering

JM

[Thinkingabout]

3. Are you really a defense attorney?

I am surprised you think the $10,000 came from the Patriot Act. It has been around for many years, in fact I think I would delete the post.

[DefenseLawyer]

12. Read the USA Patriot Act, just for fun.

Section 314, Section 319, Section 351 and Section 352 would be a good start, since reading the whole thing is probably too much to ask. You are correct that the Patriot Act did't "create" reporting requirements, but you really should read it. If you think the reporting requirements for what the bank deems "suspicious activity" hasn't changed then you can't read, and I feel bad for you.

[Thinkingabout]

33. How about reading when bt he Patriot was passed. The rule of reporting transactions over

$10,000 has been in place for a long time.

[yeoman6987]

56. So I recently redid my kitchen

I wrote two checks. One for 12500 dollars for half the job and 12760 for when it was finished. Do I have to report that?

[Thinkingabout]

58. You don't have to report it, the banking industry does it for you.

[yeoman6987]

62. Thank you.

I seriously appreciate you taking the time to answer as it is extremely rare that I write a check over 2 thousand much less 10 grand.

[MichMan]

67. Only applies to cash not checks

The reporting only applies to cash not check nor wire transfers

[CanonRay]

4. Yet another legacy of the "War on Drugs"

[Historic NY]

9. Yes, but maybe you think its a good thing when

millions of dollars cross the border. Or end up in cartels hands. This cash is buying nothing more than misery.

I'm only using this for an example.... http://www.snopes.com/photos/crime/drugmoney.asp

It had been proposed that The Treasury has recalled bills (100's) in an effort to stymie the laundering efforts, but apparently it failed.

[sabrina 1]

31. All we have to do is end the disastrous and phony Drug War and we will get back our rights that

were taken away with that fake and utterly failed so-called 'war'.

I'm surprised to see people defending those laws frankly rather than offering the solution, end it.

No one can take away 'our freedoms' except us. Everyone who supported those policies in the first place and who now accepts them, is contributing to the loss of our rights.

The trillions wasted on that failed policy which filled the corrupt prison system, could have been spent on treatment and we would have a lot fewer users in this country.

But then that was never the goal of that disastrous 'policy'.

[Historic NY]

32. Supply and demand, cut off the demand and the supply withers.

[AngryAmish]

36. A guy I know owned a nightclub in Miami in the late 70d, early 80s.

He has not worked since he was 31.

A lot of cash rolling around Miami at that time.

[newfie11]

5. +++ I agree nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. It wasn't the Patriot Act that mandated reporting large cash withdrawals.

It was the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, and it was enacted as a means to detect and prevent money laundering and tax evasion. I don't like the Patriot Act either, but this law predates it by 30 years. I'm also opposed to tax evasion and money laundering, which is what Hastert the Unspeakable was doing.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

15. Speaking of tax evasion..

Looks like Hastert was also trying to avoid paying gift tax on the money -- believe he was liable for tax on any "gift" over 14K or so. Just one more little piece of tackiness.

[jberryhill]

27. It wasn't a gift

A payment under a contract is not a "gift".

[treestar]

7. They also have to report putting more than 10K into a bank

I would like to see if getting that information has ever proven useful in stopping drugs or terrorism or other crime.

A figure that should go up with inflation, too.

There are exceptions. Like if it is for buying a house, where you have to be able to transfer a large sum.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. 10K in 1970 is the equivalent of about 60K now

So yes, indexing the amount would make sense.

[on point]

8. It isn't. It is a crime to use your money for criminal acts.

All cash, no records, transactions usually have an illegal purpose, such money laundering.. The, very old, rule about 10k is intended to catch criminals, like Hastert

Seems like it worked fine..

[DefenseLawyer]

40. No, "structuring" is a crime that doesn't in any way require that money is used for a "criminal act"

The law requires that crash withdrawals of your own money, from your own bank account, has to be reported to the government, if it's above a certain amount or if the bank deems it "suspicious". If you choose to take your own money out of your own bank account in a way so as to avoid the paperwork, you can be charged with a crime. It has zero to do with what you were using your money for.

[on point]

42. When queried as to what you did with the money, tell them. End of story if legit

If you can't tell them what you did with it, because it was for criminal activity, then you have a problem.

Bottom line, you can't do undocumented, untracked, large transactions

[strategery blunder]

45. Not necessarily

There have been cases of small business owners depositing cash from the regular course of business on a regular basis getting their cash seized, because of "structuring," especially in rural areas where armored car services might not be available or are prohibitively expensive.

Say a typical day for your business generates $4500 in receipts, of which $1500 is cash, and you're open Monday through Saturday. So typically if you make a bank run once a week, you'd be depositing $9k a week. Sure, there'd be variance, but the feds could definitely look upon it as an opportunity to seize some free cash by making the "structuring" accusation and initiating civil forfeiture. It doesn't help that a lot of insurance policies won't cover cash in excess of $10K--leaving the business owner stuck between a rock and a hard place, because if the business owner waits until the reporting requirement *is* triggered to avoid suspicion, then his assets won't be insured.

The problem with these laws isn't so much the prohibition on structuring, it's the lack of due process and the difficulty of getting the funds returned when you're innocent. Technically, they're not accusing you, they're accusing the money, and the money can't defend itself. The law is written in such a way as to evade the presumption of innocence and the due process rights that attach. You don't even have to be accused or tried, let alone convicted, for a crime to get your money seized. All the government needs to do is say the money was "probably" involved in illegal activity somehow.

That is the real problem with civil asset forfeiture.

[MichMan]

50. not structuring

Mi wife who does this daily as part of her job says banks have discretion for businesses and individuals that deposit such types of transactions on a regular basis. It falls under the "know your customer" rule

This situation above would not be considered structuring to avoid reporting.

[NutmegYankee]

52. You would be wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/politics/rules-change-on-irs-seizures-too-late-for-some.html

Mr. McLellan’s money was seized under a subset of civil forfeiture law that governs cash deposits under $10,000, the threshold at which a bank is required to report the transaction to the government. But limiting deposits to less than $10,000 to evade the reporting requirement, known as structuring, is illegal in its own right. Structuring seizures have ballooned in recent years as law enforcement task forces comb through hundreds of thousands of bank reports, often using warrants based on nothing more than a pattern of deposits. The I.R.S. alone made 639 structuring seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005.
.......

During a congressional hearing in February, Representative George Holding, a Republican from North Carolina, referred to Mr. McLellan’s case, saying no crime other than structuring had been alleged. “If that case exists, then it’s not following the policy,” John Koskinen, the commissioner of the I.R.S., said.

But the prosecutor on the case, Steve West, was unmoved. Notified of the hearing by Mr. McLellan’s lawyer at the time, he responded with concern that the seizure warrant in the case, filed under seal but later given to Mr. McLellan, had been handed over to a congressional committee, according to an email exchange provided to The New York Times by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that has taken over the case.

“Your client needs to resolve this or litigate it,” Mr. West wrote. “But publicity about it doesn’t help. It just ratchets up feelings in the agency.” He concluded with a settlement offer in which the government would keep half the money.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/14/federal-government-to-return-107702-irs-seized-from-north-carolina-convenience-store-owner/

Under a subset of civil asset forfeiture laws that regulates cash deposits, the government can seize money from those accused of structuring violations, as it did in McLellan’s case.

.......

Following media coverage of several high profile cases involving Americans who unknowingly committed structuring violations and had money seized, the Internal Revenue Service announced last year it would only pursue structuring violations in instances where the money was tied to a crime.

In March, the Department of Justice followed suit.

In court filings, Walker stated that though the policy change is not retroactive, the government would no longer pursue the case.

Explanations don't matter. Apologies for the second link - it's from a Google search.

[strategery blunder]

55. It shouldn't be considered structuring, because the intent is not to evade reporting.

In such cases, the intent would generally be to reduce the risk of transporting the funds to the bank.

However, the law is written in a manner that allows the government to seize and do an end run around the defense, by accusing the money itself instead of the person transporting/depositing it. It's a legal fiction written into civil forfeiture law that allows the government to seize first without ever accusing anyone of a crime. The government need not prove the money was connected to a crime, it need only cry "structuring!" and take it for itself. It doesn't have to prove that you actually intended to evade reporting requirements at all; the mere allegation is sufficient until you spend probably more than the contested amount in legal fees to hire a lawyer to get it back. That is reprehensible and it should be unconstitutional, though the Congress certainly knows what it's doing when it wants to make an end run around constitutional requirements.

Someone else linked examples of what I'm talking about in reply to you. I recognize there's some overlap between civil rights and libertarians on this specific issue, which has raised eyebrows elsewhere on this thread. Broken clocks and all that.

EDIT: To reiterate, I do NOT believe that the reporting requirement itself should be repealed. I don't want to shield money laundering, either. I *do* however believe that asset forfeiture should be subject to stricter scrutiny of due process, and that the government should have to prove that you actually intended to evade reporting to enforce "structuring" itself as a criminal act.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I don't want the government snooping around my bank records...

I don't want the government snooping around my bank records but when there are laws that banks must report withdrawals over $10,000.00 and I make a hundred or so $9,999.00 withdrawals I would be a dolt not to believe I am attracting the gaze of the authorities.

[MichMan]

13. Just a couple is enough

Doesn't take a 100 transactions just a couple.

People think they somehow are outsmarting the system by going to different branches the same day etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I once need $400.00 cash on a weekend and the grocery store was closer to the ATM

I once need $400.00 in cash on a weekend and the grocery store was closer to the ATM so I went to the self service line and I bought eight cans of Arizona Ice Tea for 99 cents and withdrew $50.00 each time.


What do you think happened?

[Wilms]

28. Card got shut off? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Precisely. I had to call the Fraud Department to get the freeze removed.

I can't imagine how many checks are built into bank software.

[Wilms]

30. All I had to do was try to pay for dinner while out of town.

And the bank was pretty self-satisfied that it had done so.

Had it been an AmEx card, I would have asked, "why leave home with it?"

[Liberal_in_LA]

57. your bank got suspicious and shut off the card?

[SoCalDem]

66. Most stores offer cash back, but up to $50..

They drop their cash into time lock safes so they don't have much cash on hand, to be stolen

[MichMan]

11. People are funny sometimes

My wife has worked in banking for decades and is responsible for this reporting at the local community bank she works at.

The amount of effort people go through trying to avoid this reporting surprises me. People depositing $7-8 K at two different branches in the same day or two consecutive days thinking they are outsmarting the system. Of course that is defined as structuring which causes a SAR to be filed anyway

99% of all these transactions are benign to begin with and would result in absolutely no issues to the individual if done together anyway. Not sure why all the paranoia

[Pisces]

19. Why should a report be files that I am depositing or taking out my money??? I would be pissed if

someone at my bank questioned my deposit. It's none of their fucking business. If you have have proof that I am running an
illicit business, then you should have to prove that before a judge and get permission to have my back account tracked.

But I should not be asking anyone permission to withdraw my own money. It is unbelievable that people are rolling over for this
with the explanation of if you aren't doing something wrong you have nothing to worry about. I am now guilty until proven
innocent. THis is not freedom.

[MichMan]

22. Been the law for decades

Nobody is questioning anyone's deposit nor is anybody guilty of anything.

Banks are required to report anything over 10K whether deposits or withdrawls and also if there is a pattern of structuring to evade the law. The bank can be fined substantial amounts if they don't report it.

This was originally passed by congress during the Nixon administration. Every congress since has had the power to repeal it. I didn't expect to see people opposing efforts to stop money laundering and tax evasion

Hide your cash in your mattress for all I care.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Money laundering, it is a crime.

[Pisces]

60. If I sell some jewelry and furniture in my house and go deposit 11k in my account. I don't think I

should have to explain myself to a bank manager. It's none of their business. If I have 200k in savings and withdraw 50k in cash
to give to my parents or for any reason that is my fucking business. The bank, the FBI have no business asking me how I am
spending my money. I think this is crazy. If you have suspicions that I am operating an illegal business, get a judge to agree and
then wire tap me, look at my bank etc. But why is the government or bank able to question me with no hint of illegality?
I don't like having my conversations taped, my computer emails kept in perpetuity and if I had more than 10k to withdraw, I wouldn't like anyone questioning me. I have nothing to hide and and I have nothing to explain.

i don't like how Elliot Spitzer was caught and I don't like how Hastert was caught. In the latter case because it involved a minor the
ends justified the means, however, it does raise a lot of questions about our freedom.

[peecoolyour]

18. Meh.

Most of us live paycheck to paycheck.

We couldn't raise a suspicion if we tried.

My main concern is with metadata, phone/email monitoring.

[Pisces]

20. This is why there isn't as much outcry. I'll bet it would be just as easy to track anomalies within

a bank account regardless of dollar amount. I bet that would worry people. Of course you won't now it's being done. Freedom is
an illusion. I'm no longer free to spend my money as I see fit or sell things in my home without the government monitoring me????

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. If you were at a bank and a man was depositing his $1,000.00 pay check every week

If you were at a bank and a man was depositing his $1,000.00 pay check every week and then started depositing $20,000.00 pay checks every week would you become suspicious and report it to the authorities?

[Jim Lane]

37. Your hypothetical isn't suspicious because it's a check.

A check or electronic transfer leaves a record. If the bank customer is up to something shady, the movement of the money can be documented. I don't think a bank would report the $20k deposit to any authorities. A friendly teller might, as a personal matter, say something like, "Hey, you got a new job?" but that's it.

If someone who had been depositing $1,000 cash every week suddenly started depositing $20,000 cash every week, that would be very different. The bank would certainly file a currency transaction report (CTR) on each deposit. I don't know the rules for filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) but it wouldn't surprise me if someone at the bank noticed this very strange development and filed the SAR.

I also don't know what happens when the Treasury Department gets the CTR's. If someone who hasn't been on their radar at all is suddenly being CTR'd for $20k every week, presumably an alarm goes off and there's at least some sort of inquiry. It's not proof that the bank customer is committing a crime, but you'd have to figure that a high percentage of the people dealing with that much cash are selling drugs or running numbers or the like.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I always wondered how folks launder their money...

I know many Mafioso had legitimate job titles or businesses...

[Bluenorthwest]

23. And where is the law that says it is a crime to take your money out of the bank? Citation please.

I also take issue with 'Hastert aside' because the specifics of his life and business dealings are far from typical and contain multiple red flags and reasons for regulatory concern.
As a former Speaker, Hastert was entitled to funds of 40K a month for 5 years to maintain an office, which he did. Most of the money was spent on payroll. Hastert was at the same time conducting very lucrative lobbying work, and questions had been raised about the use of this tax payer funded office for his lobbying work. Hastert traded in his status as a former high official.
The cash withdrawals began shortly after the 5 years of office funding ended.
As lobbyist, Hastert had a contract with the government of Turkey worth several hundred thousand dollars. As part of that work, he traveled with current Congress members on Turkey's dime on trips to Turkey. This also raised ethical and regulatory questions, as in general, lobbyists are not supposed to travel with the members they lobby.
Then he starts taking out cash in a furtive manner, suggestive of a less than forthright transaction. Then he lies about it when asked.
By opening with 'Hastert aside' you are asking me to consider him, his background, connections and current million dollar business activities as being beside the point. You are insinuating that the regulations for being a lobbyist for foreign governments are the same as regulations for owning a dry cleaners.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

25. Denny got hoisted by his own petard!

[DFW]

26. It isn't a crime to take your own money out of the bank

There's just a reporting requirement, that's all.

It's the case in most countries now, although some over-eager agencies use it as an excuse to terrorize their population, and steal what they can.*

In the USA, it must be reported, but even on customs forms when you enter the country, explaining that you have to report if you are bringing in $10,000 or more in cash or negotiables, it specifically states that ANY amount is legal, it just needs to be reported.

One time, an auction firm back home in Dallas freaked out when they held a rare coin auction in California. Some Russian guy bought some high priced rarities for $300,000 and opened up a briefcase full of cash with which to pay for them. He showed them the customs form stating clearly that he had declared the cash when he entered the country. The auction firm accepted the cash and made a photocopy of the customs declaration. When they brought the cash to their bank in Dallas, the bank freaked out, too, but accepted the customs declaration, and filled out the paperwork. When the yearly audit came, the IRS examined the documents, said everybody had done what the law required, and declared they were happy with the compliance.

That said, I agree in principle that if it's your money, you came by it legally, and have no intention of avoiding any kind of law when you do whatever it is you planned to do with it, you should be allowed to do so without the KGB looking over your shoulder all the time. In my experience in the States, however, in recent years, there are very few transactions that would warrant amounts of cash over $10,000. Everyone seems to have a credit card or at least a checking account. Sure, if someone wants to show off at a fancy wedding or restaurant there might be occasion to need over $10,000, but that's more the exception than the rule.

*The one case that brought this to mind was when an acquaintance of mine was raided and dumped in jail for three weeks (no charges, they can do that with no reason in Belgium). He was detained on suspicion of "money laundering." He owns a precious metals business, which means he works with large sums of money on razor thin margins and works with banks who sometimes refuse to even wait 24 hours for a wire to clear. They need cash by the close of the business day- So, his business had withdrawn 900 million euros over the course of a couple of years--from the Central Bank of Belgium!! Hardly the Belgian institution most likely to be looking to launder money. After three weeks in a jail cell, held on no charges at all, he came before an appeals judge. The authorities started yelling about 900 million euros. The guy addressed the judge, asking if there was any logic at all to obtaining money from the country's central bank in order to somehow make it black, with the intention of subsequently laundering it white again. The judge agreed that the scenario was ludicrous. The cops started whining about "900 million euros!!" and the judge reminded them that the money's origin had been explained and backed up by government documents. Since they couldn't provide any argument why the guy needed further incarceration, the judge ordered him set free immediately, wondering why he had been locked up in the first place. After all, he was a white guy in Brussels, not a black guy in Georgia.

This is happening all over France and Belgium these days, by the way. When merchandise is seized, somehow there is always less of it when it is returned after the (almost inevitable) finding that the victim had not done anything wrong. Sometimes, they really get creative. They once seized about $10 million of top grade diamonds from a Jewish diamond dealer Antwerp, kept them for two or three years, "found" that the guy was innocent, and returned his diamonds. Only-- they had somehow magically been transformed from gem quality diamonds to industrial quality diamonds (worth less than 10% of the original value) while in police custody. The leader of the Socialists in the Belgian Senate, an acquaintance of mine, told me the government knew about it, but couldn't do anything about it. She didn't elaborate, but I got the feeling she thought it wasn't healthy to delve into such cases too deeply.

You think WE have it bad? There's a lot more (or less, depending on how you look at it) to that country than chocolate, waffles and the canals of Brugge.

[Igel]

34. Back in the '80s I worked for a small non-profit.

It had a rainy day fund. A large one, since it wasn't just a really small non-profit.

Bosses wanted to set up a Swiss investment account. Taxes, obviously, weren't the issue. We paid no income tax or capital gains tax.

They told me to withdraw something like $30k and wire it overseas. Then they countermanded this. "That'll look suspicious"--they knew about the law that had been on the books for many years--"Instead, every Monday for the next three weeks withdraw $10k and wire it."

Sure. That certainly looked a lot less suspicious.

One point that has to be made is this: The Patriot Act is far, far less than it appears. While we like to point to all of its horrible provisions, one thing that the PA did was amalgamate all kinds of bits and pieces of pre-existing laws into one omnibus statute. Most of the Patriot Act pre-existed the Patriot Act. Parts were modified and parts added. Much was just taken as it already was. It's like saying everything in a Walmart is somehow "Walmart": In fact, while some things are made by and specifically for Walmart, some things are already on the market and are just modified for Walmart, but most things in a Walmart can be bought at any number of stores with no difference.

It's easier to ignore this, because then we have a neat (R) to blame right at hand without doing any additional work or thinking. Another motivation is that the real culprits in many instances are previous congresses and presidents, sometimes (D), and that's just icky.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. And a good accountant

Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Would tell you that structured withdrawals are going to raise red flags. You can take your money out. This was passed originally in 1973 and strengthened by laws (USPA) passed and sheppered through by Hastert.

The fact he seemed not to know this tells me he never read the bill, which in itself is situation normal for the Congress

Some of this is over criminalization. But this is legislation that came from the war on drugs and actual international agreements.

[Holly_Hobby]

39. Our credit union questioned our deposits EVERY TIME

After my husband retired, we withdrew $3,500 a month from his mutual fund or whatever he had, to live on until his disability went through. Every damned time I went to the credit union with the check, they called the mutual fund to confirm authenticity. Even with all the security printed on checks these days. The mutual fund wanted $35 for each check that were direct deposited, so my husband opted for paper checks via the mail. It was a pain.

I hate the banks, and even credit unions, now. They even made him give a fingerprint each time, and we've been with that credit union for over 30 years and they know us both.

So when we got a large settlement check from a car accident, instead of depositing it, we took it to the bank it was drawn on and they gave us $37,000 in cash. Cash. All in $20's. No questions asked, just a Driver's license from both of us. The credit union would have put a 3 week hold on it if we had deposited it.

See what you've done? You got me started...

[randome]

41. I don't understand this knee-jerk response of "Government is evil!"

It sounds too much like a GOP response.

Hastert Paid Off Man Over Sexual Abuse

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/hastert-paid-off-man-over-childhood-sexual-abuse

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[frazzled]

43. It isn't, and the Patriot Act has nothing to do with it

Reporting cash withdrawals over $10K has been a requirement since the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.

I suppose you think the evil government should have no means at its disposal to track money-laundering criminal activities. Personally, I don't particularly want to live in that country.

Everybody's heard about the economic growth of China, India, Mexico and Russia (well, at least, until recently). But it turns out that success has come with a big asterisk: These countries now are the biggest source of illegal money in the world, exporting $1 trillion a year in laundered funds, drugs, and under-the-table payments.

This is the dark side of the developing world, according to a new report by international corruption watchdog Global Financial Integrity (GFI). And it's growing -- by 10 percent a year.

China leads the pack, contributing just under $250 billion in illicit financial flows in 2012, the latest date for which data is available. Russia was nearly $125 billion. India, the third most corrupt developing country by this measure, contributed just shy of $100 billion to the world's growing pool of illicit money.

All told, the top 10 countries account for a "staggering 67 percent of the global total by volume," the researchers note.

The takeaway is that these countries, whatever success they have had, are still struggling to contain corruption and illegal finance that can easily undermine growth and prevent the countries from building on their successes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/16/china-russia-india-and-mexico-launder-as-much-money-as-the-next-141-developing-countries-combined/

I suppose you don't want billionaires or corporations to have to keep their money in this country and pay taxes on it either. Well, I do. Because we need it to build bridges and provide mental health services and keep the air and water clean and perform all the functions that government, as a contract between the people, is meant to do.

This libertarian stuff is anti-liberal and anti-progressive.

[struggle4progress]

44. Oh, how dis howwid and twadjick tale bwakes my widdle heart!

[randome]

46. Hey! Pederasts have rights, too!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[NaturalHigh]

47. Agreed.

[Exilednight]

48. To a statistical slant on this; the Russian mob is nearly a $1 TRILLION empire, with about $200

billion being laundered in the U.S. on a yearly basis.

$10,000 might not seem like a lot, but how many transactions does it take to keep from raising a flag if they ran even half of that thru banks and kept the other half in cash?

[hifiguy]

49. I agree completely. nt

[libdem4life]

53. I can only wish I had this problem, but alas, 'twas not to be.

[Warpy]

54. It shouldn't be a crime to transport your own money in a wad of cash, either

but nosy agents who find it in luggage will confiscate it under asset forfeiture because we all know that the only thing people use cash for is drug deals, right? It costs more money to post a bond to get your money back and people who are carrying their life savings can't do that.

There are a lot of unconstitutional laws out there, mostly attacking the Fourth Amendment. They've all got to go, but a USSC stacked with Republicans won't do it.

[DawgHouse]

63. I didn't realize that you had to report withdrawals at all.

I knew about the deposit limit because I had to deposit a large check from a real estate transaction many years ago, before the Patriot Act was enacted.

[Recursion]

69. I don't know that "you" do, but the bank does (nt)

[DawgHouse]

70. Ah, yes. They have their own reporting regulations.

Wasn't thinking it all the way through.

[m-lekktor]

64. I agree.nt

[SoCalDem]

65. If you do not put it in the bank no one's the wiser

BUT the second it's in the bank, THEY are bound by law to keep track..

I heard a lawyer yesterday say that all he had to do was to get a lawyer to draw up a private agreement, and he could have written checks to the guy with no problem, but he thought he had a better way...not !

[Recursion]

68. And it's still not a crime, is it? (nt)