TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

https://twitter.com/jodybarr/status/1440856486280785922

by adolph • 5 years ago

307 182 5 years ago

dmitrygr2• 5 years ago

All governments want cashless economies. They make it easier to track money, collect taxes, keep an eyes on the populace, etc. India did it by invalidating all large-denomination bills. China did it by limiting ATM withdrawals. United States is doing it in the most American way possible. Literal highway robbery!

lotsofpulp7• 5 years ago

People, generally, want to be able to pay electronically too. It is very convenient.

saurik• 5 years ago

That is an unrelated thought: the world can slowly come to hardly ever use cash--or even achieve universal cashless-ness--without the continued existence of cash being actively discouraged by the government.

kragen4• 5 years ago

My experience is the opposite. I can open up my wallet and take out a $1000 bill* in about three seconds; if change is due, that typically takes about another ten seconds. Paying with a credit card takes about a minute, four to ten times less convenient, except a significant percentage of the time the time "no hay sistema" and it just doesn't work, and sooner or later your credit card number gets sold to the Russian Mafia on a carding forum. I guess for super organized people checking your monthly statement to see if you've been signed up for a porn subscription you don't know about is not a big deal, but if you're super organized can't you just organize yourself to have the cash you need when you need it?

Also, do I really want Visa International to know what brand of constipation medicine I take and which anarchist magazines I subscribe to? (None, I swear!) Anything I buy on a credit card is something I can expect to have to explain to the police or the immigration authorities sooner or later, possibly after the next military coup, or maybe just because there was a protest nearby that turned violent and they'd like to know why I was in that neighborhood that day. Also, why do I need acetone? I'm not cooking meth, am I?

If you think this stuff will never affect you, well, nobody ever thinks it will affect them, until it does. Most people alive have lived through an invasion, a coup, or an episode of extreme governmental repression, and most people who haven't yet will.

Bitcoin is a nice alternative when it's applicable, but transaction costs are a bit high for buying a cigarette or a restaurant meal, and it's a headache when the confirmation time is 45 minutes instead of 10 minutes. Hopefully Lightning will fix this.

______

* Inflation is bad here, yo. $1000 is about US$6, but printing $2000 bills hasn't been approved yet.

anyxdf2• 5 years ago

I don't think so. Spending control is much easier when you withdraw a fixed amount at the beginning of the month.

Checking bank statements is easier (they are very short).

You don't have to worry who will abuse your credit card or bank details.

actually_a_dog3• 5 years ago

If the US government actually wanted to (mostly) eliminate cash, they could just stop printing currency, and wait for what's in circulation to wear out. That would take about 23 years [0]. As it is, though, only about 8% of all USD exists in physical form [1], anyway, making the USD largely a digital currency already.

---

[0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-spa...

[1] https://money.howstuffworks.com/currency.htm

dmitrygr2• 5 years ago

That would be reported by the news and people would care. Whereas here we get this reaction: "they seized his money and say he is suspected of being a drug dealer, well then i have nothing to worry about - i am not a drug dealer."

bserge2• 5 years ago

Can't get paid more than 1500 in cash in France. 2000 Pounds is "a lot of money" to exchange in the UK. The limits are suspiciously higher if you're well dressed and stepping out of an expensive car or moving millions. Tells you how pathetically poor the poor really are.

SilasX• 5 years ago

"And the brilliant part is, we have inflation as a matter of policy, and never update the threshold, so eventually the limit is meaningless and we can seize all cash!"

godelski3• 5 years ago

There's a proposal for a new fed program that will track anything over $600 in the US now[0]. It is pretty much aimed at gig workers. Previously the IRS just didn't care about anyone below the poverty line. I'm not sure I'm even fine with the spirit of what is happening here, since these people would be getting that money back in refunds anyways. Also, I think a problem is that it is placing the burden on people who already don't have money, by complicating their taxes. It's weird to see banks and credit unions sending petitions around[1]. But this is also why I'm nervous about a fed crypto coin.

[0] https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/tax/bloombergtaxnews/da...

[1] https://www.cuna.org/advocacy/actions/grassroot-action-cente...

version_five2• 5 years ago

I think there is a sort of "war on the poor" going on (or escalating really). Not specifically organized, but pushing into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and finding no resistance because they don't push back. Think of most consumer facing environmental laws (emissions, charge for bags, bike lanes etc), car seat laws, health stuff - like basically any covid rule, it's all super regressive. I think there is positive feedback because it keeps the poor "in their place" while simultaneously signaling how progressive the proponents are. Expect it to get a lot worse.

chiefofgxbxl• 5 years ago

I remember seeing increased IRS enforcement as one of the payment methods for the recent U.S. infrastructure bill, and thinking about how that really meant taxing the poor:

"One of the starkest differences is who will pay for it all. While Biden pledged to increase corporate income taxes to fund infrastructure, Republicans drew a line in the sand. The new deal pulls together a patchwork of increased IRS enforcement, selling off petroleum reserves, [...]" [0]

[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-06-24/factbox-b...

curryst• 5 years ago

They would get their income tax back, but not payroll taxes.

The distinction is important because Social Security only applies on income up to ~$140k (this year). Due to that, the amount of Social Security tax revenue from a poor person is fairly close to the amount paid by someone rich. A family of 4 at the federal poverty line ($26,500/year) pays $1,643 dollars to Social Security. Someone who makes $4M/year pays $8,853.60.

So 5 families at the poverty line == 1 bajillionaire from a Social Security perspective.

I'm not in favor of the proposal, but it's not as absurd as it looks, policy wise. Morally, I would agree with you. This is an inevitable outcome of combining low wages and 1099s. It's really hard to force yourself to put your payroll taxes away in savings when you're only netting $7/hr and your bills are past due. It does also put them in a position where they should really have a tax professional, instead of just doing TurboTax or whatever.

Y_Y3• 5 years ago

Really? Retail businesses move much larger amounts of cash every day, private citizens (rich and poor alike) rarely see more than a couple of hundred at a time. At least this is my experience.

biztos• 5 years ago

Meanwhile, in the eastern parts of the EU, it’s totally common to transact tens of thousands of Euros in cash, with lawyers preparing the contracts and observing the counting of the cash, especially for real estate.

Less common but not exactly rare in Spain, I would assume also Greece and Portugal. Can’t comment of France but in Germany it would be really weird, though probably legal.

em-bee• 5 years ago

there is a tv show in germany where people are selling rare art-works to dealers which routinely hand over 10000-20000 euro in cash. still unusual, but it's definitely happening.

fy20• 5 years ago

I'm building a house, and throughout the process have kept petty cash of €10k for when we receive a bill. Most people will accept a bank transfer, but you need to pay extra - suspiciously the extra amount is always equal to the amount of income tax they'd need to pay ;-)

The government have tried to crack down on this by increasing ATM fees and imposing daily limits, but I don't think it will really change anything.

standardUser4• 5 years ago

It's surreal to me how little political or public support there is for ending these kinds of egregious government overreaches.

lotsofpulp7• 5 years ago

Especially when one party seemingly champions “civil rights” or “the little guy”, and the other party champions “small government”. And yet a government employee stealing someone’s cash with no justification does not fall under any of those categories.

snicker7• 5 years ago

As mentioned in the tweets, the bipartisan FAIR act is supposed to reform civil asset forfeiture.

lamontcg2• 5 years ago

One party champions unrestricted capitalism for billionaires, the other party is in the pocket of pharma, banks and other large corporations (and the management-class that work in those businesses). Everything else they say is trying to sell you on something to try to buy your vote. We have one party of the 1% and another party of the 0.0002%.

lisper• 5 years ago

That's because there is a widespread perception that if someone is engaging in a large scale cash transaction then there must be something shady going on even if there is no direct evidence of it (because legitimate business is transacted using checks or wire transfers). This is especially true if the person carrying the cash has dark skin. (Having a criminal record didn't help either in this case.)

dogleash• 5 years ago

a widespread perception that if someone is engaging in a large scale cash transaction then there must be something shady going on

People who've never carried a sum of cash on their person are often terrified of the prospect and assume everyone is as frighted of as they are.

I used to walk cash from a retail store safe to the bank as part of the morning routine. I've had so many lectures about why I should have never done it. I should have forgone my paid leisurely stroll and "just" arranged an armored truck. Or I should have quit over principal, like it was some sort of uniquely risky job compared to all the risky jobs out there and no owner should ever put on an employee. It wasn't even that much money. One day's worth of cash transactions from a small store in the age of credit cards.

sk2020• 5 years ago

I don’t think regular voters like the policy; they just don’t have any input. Plus there is only so much bandwidth for legislative process, and that’s pretty log-jammed by some hot topic issues lately.

standardUser4• 5 years ago

While there may be some hot topics recently, I imagine there was downtime in the last few decades for Congress to stop law enforcement from systematically stealing from citizens who have been convicted of no crimes.

mywittyname4• 5 years ago

The polls I've seen put support for civil asset forfeiture to around 16%. So there's plenty of public support to end it.

The police are powerful though, and proceeds from this don't seem to terribly well accounted for in every PD. We know the feds and the local prosecutors get their cut, but after that... They are going to throw everything they can at keeping this gravy train alive.

dfxm12• 5 years ago

The unchallenged near-deification of law enforcement and hardline "tough on crime" propaganda in the USA leads too many people to think a certain way:

1. If there was some civil asset forfeiture, the victim must've done something wrong because cops certainly can't be wrong.

2. If you've committed even a minor, non violent, crime, it doesn't matter how harsh the penalty is, you deserve it.

3. A majority of voters don't see themselves as criminals and aren't hassled by cops like some segments of the population are. They think this will never affect them, so they pay it little mind - until the day it does affect them.

anyxdf2• 5 years ago

If you make it a BLM issue, there is a small chance of something happening. That is the only chance.

Though the Democrats would probably come up with some sophisticated explanation why this particular case does not fall under BLM.

Remember that Biden is the guy who pushed the Clipper Chip.

edoceo• 5 years ago

Clipper Chip: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

g_sch• 5 years ago

Do you really think so? Both parties have assiduously avoided making any material legislative moves to address any issues raised by the BLM movement. Democrats have been more eager to make symbolic gestures (renaming things, removing statues, kneeling in the Rotunda wearing kente cloth) but I can't think of one substantive bill that was passed because the BLM movement championed it.

cpursley• 5 years ago

And the racist crack cocaine laws that destroyed tens of thousands of African American lives.

modshatereality• 5 years ago

This is why I don't participate, fucking vampires running the show.

arwhatever• 5 years ago

I particularly hate it when the airport officials seize all of my cryptocurrency. :-)

williamscales• 5 years ago

You jest, but wait until they put you in a small room and beat you with a wet noodle until you give up your passphrase.

cooljacob204• 5 years ago

It's not like they seize money out of my bank account..

8note4• 5 years ago

Nothing is stopping them. Travelling with access to money isn't particularly different from travelling with money

andrewmg• 5 years ago

Here's more information on the Institute for Justice class action (mentioned in the Twitter thread) that's challenging TSA airport forfeitures:

https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/

IJ is the leader on this issue, and if you oppose civil-forfeiture abuse, you might consider supporting IJ's work.

(Disclosure: the IJ attorney pictured in the thread is a friend whom I admire greatly.)

xboxnolifes2• 5 years ago

I've only somewhat recently heard of IJ, but it's one of the first orgs that I've ever actually felt compelled to support. Their marketing is really good at both being informative and persuasive. I really hope that their goals are as good as I read them to be.

joncrane2• 5 years ago

It blows my mind that citizens have to pay their own money to support organizations like IJ, ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.

gred• 5 years ago

Really? Why should we not organize to fight for causes that we believe in? Would you be happy delegating your moral compass to the U.S. Department of Do-Goodery?

refurb• 5 years ago

Why? You expect the government, who is infringing on your rights, to do it?

CWuestefeld• 5 years ago

IJ is one of the charities that you can select for Amazon Smile, so a small percentage of your Amazon purchases will be donated to IJ. I think they're deserving.

aazaa2• 5 years ago

Lyon arrived @RDUAirport & gave his bag to @TSA to be scanned. He says he absolutely knew TSA would see the cash, but said he also knew there is no law limiting the amount of cash one can fly with in the U.S.

Here's the real problem. Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. It's outside the legal system, which is why it's nearly impossible to get your money back. It's why the legality of what Lyon was doing doesn't matter. It's not a system of law, but power. He who has the power makes the law on the spot.

That the US collectively has resigned itself to this level of clear overreach, utterly indefensible on any legal grounds, not to mention the bill of rights, says a lot about what 9/11 has done.

The terrorists won the battle the people of this country thought they were fighting.

gamblor9563• 5 years ago

Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action.

This is categorically wrong. CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs, racketeering, fraud, or financial crimes.)

CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things.

CAF is problematic, especially the way it is run in the South and Midwest, but don't make it out to be something that it isn't.

EDIT: The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not. CAF is specifically authorized by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, a federal law.

The OP asserted that the "terrorists won" even though CAF predates 9/11 and was created to combat organize crime. (CAF laws in the U.S. date back to the 1700s, but were infrequently used until roughly 1920 when they were used to target organized crime during Prohibition. The modern federal CAF law was passed in the 1984, to fight the "war on drugs", specifically referring to the drug cartels, and were modeled on the Prohibition Era CAF laws.)

aazaa2• 5 years ago

CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things.

Got a source for that?

cortesoft• 5 years ago

I don't think the fact that the government loses most of the CAF cases means this isn't a problem. Winning the case will cost the person money and time, and they will be without their money for that time.

steve_g• 5 years ago

You're right that it's not extralegal action. But you're wrong that rarity makes it newsworthy. It's newsworthy because it's so obviously unjust and corrupt.

romwell• 5 years ago

CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things.

Yeah, and we have an awful lot of news like that.

The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not.

In practice, there have been enough cases to justify saying that.

We live in a country where the authorities can confiscate cash when they see it without reason and consequence.

That, to my eyes, is extralegal.

Whether the law gives them this de-facto power is beside the point; the justice system clearly does.

hapless3• 5 years ago

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along.

I think it's important to note that it began with an extra-legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure that followed.

Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all losses to property crimes combined, and we have no way of knowing how much more was lost to extra-legal demands that didn't pass through C.A.F. proceedings.

-------------

We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort to un-make that monster.

phkahler• 5 years ago

> The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not.

How does it jive with the constitution? Particularly the 4th amendment, but others as well.

8note4• 5 years ago

The civil system does not assume innocence, so as a defendant you have a to prove a negative.

CAF cases make the news because the defendant actually gets their money back, and it didn't already get spent building a new hot tub for the police station lounge

tshaddox• 5 years ago

I mean isn’t everything in the “civil legal system”?

treeman79• 5 years ago

If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate, some places will require you to make child support payments even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything todo with the child, etc.

Welfare office Argument being is that someone should pay for the kid.

dragonwriter3• 5 years ago

If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate, some places will require you to make child support payments even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything todo with the child, etc.

“Some places”? Really, which exactly? The only case I am aware of in any US jurisdiction where child support is required even in the face of proof of biological non-paternity is for children born in wedlock (sometimes with other requirements, such as marital cohabitation) in states where the marital presumption of paternity is conclusive (or conclusive when other requirements are met) rather than merely presumptive. And in that case it is literally what you legally signed up for.

darthvoldemort• 5 years ago

No one has explained to me how this is still legal. This "law" has persisted until Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden. Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this?

Can no one mount a legal challenge against this?

vkou• 5 years ago

Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this?

Because the other side of the aisle will crap on you for doing it, and why burn political capital on a minor problem, when you have more pressing issues, like waging a war, digging through fallout of the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression, getting a crappy single-payer healthcare system through, filling three supreme court seats, dealing with a global pandemic, or keeping the wealthy and powerful happy.

The only people who actually ground their elections on this kind of platform are anti-authoritarian contrarians, which have a rolling average of two seats in Congress and one in the Senate. Constituents, frankly, don't care about this.

mrguyorama• 5 years ago

Constituents ABSOLUTELY care about these things and other very important issues.

The problem is, nobody cares about these things MORE than "stopping abortion", "muh guns", "fuck taxes", "status quo" that most incumbents scream about. We have a two party system that discourages caring about anything.

whywhywhywhy• 5 years ago

Because once these things are in place they’re there forever. The government and its institutions will never hand back power they have been granted.

Remember the patriot act when the next round of powers come in because of covid.

chickenpotpie2• 5 years ago

“ The government and its institutions will never hand back power they have been granted.”

Completely false, there are countless instances of government giving up a power it previously had. Previous presidential administration rolled back environmental regulations, Covid regulations across the country have greatly lightened up since last year, there’s no draft going on right now…

willcipriano2• 5 years ago

The elderly men and women who run the country want it that way. After a few decades of the same people in office year after year, what other explanation holds water?

robbedpeter• 5 years ago

It's time for guillotines, or to make it more American, "Freedom Choppers."

Things have gone too far, by all appearances, for the self corrective constitutional mechanisms to repair the situation.

Otherwise, welcome to the new normal. Enjoy your cake.

lambertsimnel• 5 years ago

There is another plausible explanation: the policy exists because of incentives arising from the government's structures, rather than the wishes of policymakers.

Conceivably, other people in the same system might also leave the policy in place, while the same people in a different system might change the policy.

macksd• 5 years ago

There actually was a legal challenge against this, and right before a deadline to respond the TSA clarified it's current policy: https://www.aclu.org/cases/bierfeldt-v-napolitano?redirect=c...

So if it happens, you can go to court for your individual case and possibly win, which according to this comment happens all the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28635430

So more is needed, obviously. It seems to me that the status quo is that you're effectively guilty until proven innocent, and the people accusing you don't have much of an incentive to stop.

clipradiowallet• 5 years ago

I'd bet this type of behavior from the government is what causes "domestic terrorism"...not just the "radicals" mentioned in headlines.

rablackburn• 5 years ago

I’m not aware of any domestic terror attacks (shootings?) where asset forfeiture has even been raised as a contributing factor.

The Las Vegas shooter is kinda-money related in that he was a problem gambler. That’s the closest I can think of.

Do you have any citation where this has happened? Because if not, that’s probably a pretty poor “bet” you’re making…

mindslight• 5 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

The IRC is distinct from civil asset forfeiture, but they're both obtuse bureaucracies that care not for the individuals they crush.

(idk what's with the downvotes. What I said is pretty factual unless you're like an accountant)

throwaway0a5e3• 5 years ago

When people can't get recourse through the courts they go around the courts. Killdozer dude is the quintessential example.

dangus• 5 years ago

Let's step back and pretend like the TSA/police never engage in civil asset forfeiture in the first place. That issue aside, this is still a colossally stupid way to make a transaction.

A thousand bad outcomes that are possibly more likely than this scenario could have happened. The bag could have been lost in the taxi, lost by the airline, stolen by a passerby, left at home, and the list goes on.

Has this guy ever heard of Western Union? Bitcoin? A cashier's check? Anything else besides a suitcase full of cash?

This method of making a large transaction is so stupid that it's hard for me to even blame the government for considering it automatically suspicious. Of course, having no due process surrounding civil asset forfeiture is not right, but that doesn't mean that this transaction isn't suspicious.

I'd go ahead and play devil's advocate here: the only reason to carry this much cash is to do one of the following:

1. Evade sales and income tax (You can say this isn't your problem, or that the government should take less of our money anyway, but countries that have high tax avoidance rates have poor infrastructure and public services – tax avoidance hurts honest people the most)

2. Make a transaction to exchange illegal goods or people

It's entirely possible that this guy's story is just a lie. I think it's naive to pretend that this guy isn't likely to be connected to organized crime. That's the whole "organized" part of it: they're going to be armed with a good story and disciplined behavior, not like the people you see on Cops admitting guilt the second a beat cop starts asking questions.

mywittyname4• 5 years ago

People trust cash. A lot of people dealing in used goods only accept cash. It's substantially more difficult to forge a load of $100s than it is to forge a money order. All you need to verify a stack of $100 bills is a $5 marker.

pempem3• 5 years ago

I'd take it one further.

If CSCS type programs take hold outside of china, you will need cash to do many basic things without the support of the government who will be busy regulating if you can fly, take a train, open an account, throttle your internet etc. etc.

DHPersonal• 5 years ago

All you need to verify a stack of $100 bills is a $5 marker.

Those do not work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_banknote_detection...

hakfoo• 5 years ago

I collect coins. Many dealers are cash-only, especially for items where they're trading near bullion value. The 3% or so transaction fee is pretty much your entire margin if you're dealing with a commodity 1oz gold coin.

I've been hoping to go to one of the big national-attraction bourses after the Covid crisis ends (all the budget not spent on vacations in 2020 and 2021 would pay for a nice $3 gold piece) but I've been thinking about this exact scenario.

I've noticed my bank, despite being a large national bank, has a habit of not having branches in the places I want to visit. So there's a fair chance I can't just do an in-person withdrawl on arrival. The ATM is limited to like $500 per day and might incur distasteful fees. So the obvious idea is to pull $5000 before I leave and carry it on my person. Except now I've got to worry about the TSA grabbing it. Since we have no large notes anymore, trying to pack fifty Franklins in my wallet is going to be pretty obvious when you put it in the little X-ray bowl.

drdeadringer• 5 years ago

I understand your point even to be surprised you don't cite "Run Lola Run" to illustrate yourself.

However, there are valid reasons people -- including criminals -- still use cash.

AdrianB1• 5 years ago

Most of Germans would disagree with you, they use a lot of cash and avoid cards, at least the older generations.

If you think someone is a criminal, prove it first; without that, shut up.

shartacct• 5 years ago

Every normal person knows about and would use those alternatives. Even if they were ignorant they would have been coached as soon as they tried to withdraw a huge amount from the bank.

The 'victim' likely had his money seized because there is an investigation linked to him but not enough evidence to convict in court (or he was associated in an investigation with someone who was already convicted). The reason for travelling is to buy 'game machines', which just seems absurd since such business deals can be conducted entirely from email or phone anyway.

woodpanel• 5 years ago

There's a joke in Cuba: Two women argue about who has the better boyfriend. The one says proudly: "Mine works as a luggage-handler at the airport!" To which the other replies ashamed: "Mine's just a doctor..."

With that in mind I wonder whether it is TSA policy to always have these officers cross-sworn in with the FBI, or if it's a legal loophole which officers can exploit?

From the tweet-thread it looks like local police departments have similar "double-agents"...

So if it is a loophole the guy in the video just figured how to maximize his reward for his moraly derelict actions. Like the luggage handler at Havanna-Airport.

effingwewt2• 5 years ago

When shit like this is so mainstream it's cross-continental and yet nothing is ever done, just goes to further show governments only support and defend themselves.

anonAndOn• 5 years ago

As if stealing your money wasn't bad enough, often a little is skimmed off the top if they are forced to return it.[0]

[0]https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-customs-agent...

Y_Y3• 5 years ago

If you don't have a bank account and aren't in a rush to move your money you can just overpay on your taxes and make about 4% from the IRS until you claim it back at least 45 days later.

BiteCode_dev2• 5 years ago

How do you make 4%?

gorjusborg• 5 years ago

Don't want U.S. law enforcement seen as a villain?

Crack down on this garbage.

pempem3• 5 years ago

Does anyone else see the tax collector of Prince John from 1970s Robinhood? Here to steal from the people to give to the government.

drenvuk2• 5 years ago

At this point, is it worth it to turn it into a criminal case where you fight them for the cash? They're trying to keep the cash inside of civil rules. what happens if you physically refuse to let them have your items? Because they're yours and you believe they're attempting to steal from you?

Strom• 5 years ago

Probably a really fast way to get yourself added to the no-fly list.

drenvuk2• 5 years ago

Probably. $115k vs no fly list. What's worse?

function_seven• 5 years ago

The cash would remain within the civil rules, and on top of that you'd catch a charge and a criminal case. Even if you beat that rap, you're still back where you started with respect to the money.

throwaway0a5e3• 5 years ago

This isn't gonna stop until the people who get screwed start buying bulldozers and getting their own justice. It's just too lucrative for the courts to strike it down until striking it down causes less problems for them than not. Follow the incentives.

Ekaros• 5 years ago

Just need to use those well-regulated militias to finally do some good in the world.

random_kris• 5 years ago

Use Bitcoin

t0mbstone• 5 years ago

The guy was a class A moron.

Bitcoin would have solved his problem, sure, but so would a simple bank account.

Literally all he had to do was put the money in a bank account and then pull it out once he landed.

Traveling with that amount of cash is insanely stupid. So many things can go wrong... Someone steals the bag or it gets lost, etc.

manuelmagic• 5 years ago

I think it's not the main point discussed here...

coolspot• 5 years ago

I traveled with like $20k cash arriving from aboard via LAX.

Declared in paper that I have those money and verbally when asked upon entry, then had to go with an officer to fill out some additional form, that’s it.

samtho• 5 years ago

The issue with the OP’s case is that this guy was flying domestically and traveling with any amount of cash is not a crime nor is required to be reported. Because this procedure of declaring cash is with Customs and Boarding Protection, it only ever applies when flying in from abroad.

chickenpotpie2• 5 years ago

What’s your point? That this isn’t an issue because it didn’t happen to you one time?

dredmorbius2• 5 years ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1440856486280785922.html

lowbloodsugar• 5 years ago

"Flying with cash is legal".

No, it clearly isn't. The law says that a government employee can take your money as long as they write some words on a bit of paper, and if any of that money ever came in to contact with any drug (which are legal in many states), or for many other reasons, then they can keep it forever.

Claiming it is legal is just a way to get more clients.

decebalus1• 5 years ago

It's legal for a person to fly with cash, but not for the cash itself. That's the core of civil forfeiture. The person is not being charged with any crimes, the money is 'detained' for investigation.

caf• 5 years ago

If the government can file 'in rem' against the pile of cash, can you also file a habeas corpus motion on behalf of the pile of cash?

The entire idea of 'in rem' actions is absurd on the face of it, and is the kind of nonsense that causes people to lose faith in the justice system. There are often comments here that (correctly) castigate software engineer types as having too much of a game-playing 'gotcha' sense of how the law works - or ought to work - but "Department of Justice vs. $137,425 in US Currency" is exactly the same kind of too-tricky-by-half game-playing, only by the lawmakers.

SkipperCat2• 5 years ago

Why would you carry that much cash? I know he has every right to do so, but there are a lot of bad players out there (TSA included) and I would not want to risk it.

You could deposit the money in a national bank (JPM, BoA, etc), call ahead and plan the withdraw from a local branch. I'm sure there are other players in this marker who would only charge a few grand to provide you the cash on site if you had the money in a trusted escrow. To me, that is cheap insurance, but also to me it's worth the $70 bucks to have my bank wire the money instantly to any bank account in the US.

Not saying this guy did wrong, just saying you can't trust anyone to be on their best behavior when they see $115K.

dudul• 5 years ago

Why would you carry that much cash? I know he has every right to do so,

Well there you go. You answered your own question. He had every right to do so, so he did it. End of story.

SkipperCat2• 5 years ago

I agree he has a right to, but I still wonder why he chose that course of action. There are plenty of things to do that are 100% legit but not worth the risk.

Maybe he just didn't know about CAF, maybe he thought it wouldn't happen to him or could other reasons. Either way, I hope other folks in the future take heed and don't trust LE with their bags of cash in transit.

TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

Related Stories