Seizures

[indago]

Journalist Shaila Dewan wrote for The New York Times 25 October 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. “How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article

But then, what can be expected from

GOVERNMENT ON THE TAKE

And it was the Demolicans that passed these laws

DEMOCRATSREPUBLICANS

I don't vote for ANY Demolicans

[rstrong]

CBC: American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money
U.S. police are operating a co-ordinated scheme to seize as much of the public’s cash as they can

Canadians have been getting warnings about this before travelling through the U.S.

The Washington Post this week reported that in the past 13 years, there have been 61,998 cash seizures on roadways and elsewhere without use of search warrants. The total haul: $2.5 billion.

[...]

It involves a nationwide network of enforcement agencies (except in the few states that have banned it) that operates with the help of a vast private intelligence service called “Black Asphalt” (police forces pay an enrolment fee of $19.95). The network uses consultants and trainers who either charge fees or operate on contingency, keeping a percentage of cash seized by their police pupils.

Here's the Washington Post story.

And of course: Let John Oliver Explain How Cops Can Take Anything From Anyone

[indago]

CBC: American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money
U.S. police are operating a co-ordinated scheme to seize as much of the public’s cash as they can

Canadians have been getting warnings about this before travelling through the U.S.

Domestic Terrorism at its finest...

[O Really]

Another side benefit of the "war on drugs" and a nice example of the law of unintended consequences.

[Boatrocker]

I've never been satisfied that it was unintended.

[O Really]

I've never been satisfied that it was unintended.

That's your government conspiracy theory for the day? Seriously? You must be ignoring O Really's Blame Casting Rule #4: "Don't attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity or incompetence."

[JTA]

If i were to get pulled over with a large sum of money, say ten thousand dollars, and have my vehicle searched, if the cop find my 10k could they confiscate it?

[Boatrocker]

I've never been satisfied that it was unintended.

That's your government conspiracy theory for the day? Seriously? You must be ignoring O Really's Blame Casting Rule #4: "Don't attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity or incompetence."

I don't see it as some grand conspiracy; it was Reagan-era grandstanding by idiot politicians. But I believe that police chiefs and sheriffs all over were quick to realize the implications and potential for windfall when they threw their support behind such measures. And they moved with lightning speed to take advantage of the lack of oversight or consequences these measures afforded.

[O Really]

I can go with that line of thought. And particularly when you notice in the original articles how many of those abused by this program were minorities of one sort or another. I didn't see anybody in the parade of horribles who looked like he'd have the knowledge, resources and a team of lawyers to make their lives miserable for the seizure.

[O Really]

What is really pissy about these types of articles is that they never give you a cite as to what law or laws they're referring to, they never put the outrageous activity into context - like is this all the people who have ever been shafted, or do the cops round up a thousand a week and steal their money? Sure you could make an argument that even one "stolen" dollar is too many, but other than that, how big a problem is this? It looked like, from one of the articles I read, that the banks have been reporting people they considered might be "suspicious." I'm not saying there are no nefarious no-goodniks at work here, but some context would be nice.

- added.. I read rstrong's reference to the WaPo article - yeah, 62,000 in 13 years looks like a lot. Which brings up the next question - why is this "news"? Didn't any of those 62,000 people scream before? Didn't anybody listen?

[rstrong]

Which brings up the next question - why is this "news"? Didn't any of those 62,000 people scream before? Didn't anybody listen?

I've seen a number of articles about the road-side seizures over the years. And a few stories about a family-owned hotel seized on no more evidence than a criminal had once stayed there years before.

It's news NOW, because the sheer scale of which it's been happening has gotten out. Plus the details on the “Black Asphalt” organization's providing consultants and trainers in exchange for a percentage of cash seized.

Before, it could be dismissed as some small corrupt police force in the middle of nowhere. Now it's organized crime; the country's police forces emerging as a powerful criminal class.

[rstrong]

Techdirt: IRS Also More Than Willing To Steal Money Under The Pretense Of Crime Fighting

Several thefts like this are listed:

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

Meanwhile:

Their insurance policy, aimed at small businesses like their grocery store, protects them from theft, but only up to $10,000. Since any dollar over 10,000 left in the store is liable to uninsurable theft, Terry and Sandy make sure their revenues are deposited in their bank account before accumulating above $10,000.

[O Really]

But this looks like something everybody could be mad about. Right-wingers who hate the government in general and the IRS in particular, civil liberties people...who would actually support it if the accounts of over 60,000 incidents are accurate? Or does the 60,000 consist of some horror stories but mostly righteous snatches? If the 60,000 are all not-guilty people minding their own $9,999 business or carrying around their vacay funds in the spare tire well, then it's really surprising not more people are screaming. Heck, that's worse than most of the stuff Republicans have tried to blame Obama for. How can they pass up the chance to blame him for this, too? And isn't it just a perfect Republican scheme? Drug war, racial/ethnic profiling, money for nothing and chicks for free. Dems should be hammering them over it.