Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on January 28, 2015, 12:16:33 PM
-
What a coinkidink. The Feds drop a fairly controversial asset forfeiture case at the same time that the Loretta Lynch hearings are starting. Guess who was the lead on the seizure?
Maybe there's more to the story, but the asset seizure sounds pretty fishy to me. Daily cash deposits from a business that serves convenience stores hardly sounds unreasonable, considering that convenience stores likely have a higher percentage of cash customers than many other businesses. Still seems to kind of suck that the business has to cover all their court costs as per the settlement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/28/feds-drop-controversial-forfeiture-case-led-by-obama-ag-pick-lynch/?intcmp=trending
-
I took notes. I think I would be better off to make the occasional deposit over 10 k . All of em under looks like a deliberate attempt to avoid tripping red flags
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I took notes. I think I would be better off to make the occasional deposit over 10 k . All of em under looks like a deliberate attempt to avoid tripping red flags
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes, because the Kafka-esque charges of "structuring" with < $10,000 deposits are just fine.
But I fully sympathize. The idea that "Occasionally letting criminals get away with stuff isn't nearly as bad as unbridled .gov power." is a hard one for some people to hold onto.
-
I think when you make a bunch of deposits in cash with a number of them. 9 k plus it looks like you are trying to game the system even when you are not. Folks wee buying 2 and 3 postal money orders for 9 k to beat the reporting requirement the post office started reporting at 3 k
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The story said they were making cash deposits from $500-$9000. The lower limits shouldn't be a problem at all, especially considering their business. My guess on the $9K deposits is that they were made on days when they had more than $10K of cash.
They may have simply thought the same as a lot of people - that keeping a deposit under $10K means no paperwork. They, like many people, may not have known about structuring and just wanted to keep the government out of their beezwacks. These days it seems there is less chance of scrutiny with three $50K deposits in a row versus three $9K deposits in a row. Better to just do the paperwork, though I'm completely sympathetic to law-abiding people who don't want to, or feel offended, having to fill out paperwork intended to catch drug pushers and terrorists.
-
The story said they were making cash deposits from $500-$9000. The lower limits shouldn't be a problem at all, especially considering their business. My guess on the $9K deposits is that they were made on days when they had more than $10K of cash.
They may have simply thought the same as a lot of people - that keeping a deposit under $10K means no paperwork. They, like many people, may not have known about structuring and just wanted to keep the government out of their beezwacks. These days it seems there is less chance of scrutiny with three $50K deposits in a row versus three $9K deposits in a row. Better to just do the paperwork, though I'm completely sympathetic to law-abiding people who don't want to, or feel offended, having to fill out paperwork intended to catch drug pushers and terrorists.
Lol.
-
Lol.
Me too, in case it wasn't clear where I stand regarding the invasion of privacy. :)
-
The dumb thing to me is that if they did find out they were making all those deposits, shouldn't that simply trigger an investigation instead of a seizure of assets? (sorry, I didn't mean to apply common sense to govt)
-
The story said they were making cash deposits from $500-$9000. The lower limits shouldn't be a problem at all, especially considering their business. My guess on the $9K deposits is that they were made on days when they had more than $10K of cash.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a very defensible policy, like "we don't want more than $5000 over our minimum cash on hand, for security reasons" and have someone available to make a deposit within an hour or two of exceeding $5k? I'm sure quick stops can gather cash in a hurry at certain times of day, but barring huge money order purchases, I'd expect that to keep their deposits in the $5000-7500 range fairly easily, while having a reasonable and documentable system for determining the deposits that even the Feds would have to stretch hard to call structuring.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to have a very defensible policy, like "we don't want more than $5000 over our minimum cash on hand, for security reasons" and have someone available to make a deposit within an hour or two of exceeding $5k? I'm sure quick stops can gather cash in a hurry at certain times of day, but barring huge money order purchases, I'd expect that to keep their deposits in the $5000-7500 range fairly easily, while having a reasonable and documentable system for determining the deposits that even the Feds would have to stretch hard to call structuring.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they probably had a very poor bookkeeping system, and that's how the feds were able to justify criminalizing the money. Though poor bookkeeping in itself shouldn't be a "crime" to justify freezing someone's funds. If the feds found the proverbial "second set of books", that's a different story. But that's also evidence. "No evidence" shouldn't be prosecuted. That's in the foundation of our legal system.
-
If I recall, they said they kept the deposits under 10K because that was the insurance cut off.
-
If I recall, they said they kept the deposits under 10K because that was the insurance cut off.
Bingo, we have a winner. I know of various businesses that make deposits every day (Restaurants, especially) simply to minimize the amount of cash on-hand in case of robbery. IIRC, from when I was with Pepsico, the restaurants had to make a least one deposit a day, and at least 2 per day if they did more the 5k in business daily.
So this isn't about the lady that runs the diner in Bumbletruck, IA that had all her money seized because she was making "suspicious" deposit of under $10k every day.
Uh, guys. She's running a greasy-spoon-diner, in Hicksville. Find an agent with two brain cells and go through her books, but I'd bet the house that she's pretty much on the up-and-up and NOT running a major drug operation, nor plotting a terrorist act. Okay if she's got a halfway decent accountant she might be fudging some of the numbers, but it'll be piddly stuff.
Ahhh, looks like they dropped it:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/12/14/prosecutors-drop-effort-to-seize-iowa-restaurants-cash/20408099/
-
Meanwhile, I just watched a video clip of Ms. Lynch before the senate committee. In the clip, she danced around a direct answer to Sen. Sessions' question, but she basically said that illegals have as much right to work in the U.S. as citizens and legal resident aliens.
If she gets confirmed, she just might be WORSE than Holder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbjsvEjXLgo&feature=youtu.be
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they probably had a very poor bookkeeping system
Nope, it's worse. They seize the money on the basis of 'suspicion' no more extensive than what it takes to get a warrant. Then you need to 'prove' that the money is legitimate. Poor bookkeeping would make getting the money back more difficult, not make it more likely that they'll take it.
That being said, I think there's a form you fill out explaining that you'll have a lot of sub-$10k deposits because of your insurance/cash policy. But if you're a small business owner and don't happen to know about it, and don't have a banker smart enough to tell you...