Mother and Teen Daughter Caught Smuggling Money!

[Hermit]

It's not illegal to carry that much or more cash or valuables; it's illegal not to declare it to Customs.

Coito objects to just that on the grounds that carrying any amount of cash is not in itself a criminal act. He is right with that, but I agree that the legal obligation to declare amounts of cash carried above a certain arbitrarily determined threshold is justified for the same reason that exceeding the arbitrarily determined speed limits on roads can be a criminal offence even if no laws other than those pertaining to speed limits have been broken in the process.

[FBM]

It's not illegal to carry that much or more cash or valuables; it's illegal not to declare it to Customs.

Coito objects to just that on the grounds that carrying any amount of cash is not in itself a criminal act. He is right with that, but I agree that the legal obligation to declare amounts of cash carried above a certain arbitrarily determined threshold is justified for the same reason that exceeding the arbitrarily determined speed limits on roads can be a criminal offence even if no laws other than those pertaining to speed limits have been broken in the process.

Yep. I'm just guessing, but I think the law requiring people to declare large amounts of cash/goods when crossing national boundaries may be a spin-off on the War on Drugs. IIRC, a lot of drug money is intercepted that way, and often the only charges that can be brought against the mules is tax evasion.

[Tyrannical]

They were probably smuggling money to Islamic terrorists in Lebanon which is where they were headed. She was on welfare, so how'd she get the $60K?

[FBM]

She had a paper route.

[Hermit]

They were probably smuggling money to Islamic terrorists in Lebanon which is where they were headed. She was on welfare, so how'd she get the $60K?

The Islamic race is more ingenious than you give it credit for, whitey.

[pErvinalia]

They were probably smuggling money to Islamic terrorists in Lebanon which is where they were headed. She was on welfare, so how'd she get the $60K?

I'd say she was stealing from white people. What other explanation could there be?

[Tyrannical]

They were probably smuggling money to Islamic terrorists in Lebanon which is where they were headed. She was on welfare, so how'd she get the $60K?

I'd say she was stealing from white people. What other explanation could there be?

I think you are exactly right! There is no way she'd be eligible for benefits if she had that much cash to bring to Lebanon with her. Makes you wonder what kind of stash she also left at home.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If by "custody" you meant a brief detention on the street or at the scene of an incident, then yes, I agree. However, your use of the phrase "take you into" custody suggested that you were referring to them taking a person somewhere. That they can't do, absent arresting you. Mine was a point of clarification.

They can hold you 72 hours without charging you. I see you avoided that point. Not surprised, it fucks your point all to hell. Have a nice life.

Of course it doesn't fuck my point to hell, or anywhere close. You're confusing different concepts. They can't take you into custody for questioning for 72 hours. That isn't permitted. They can arrest you and take you into custody on probable cause, and they have some period, whether 48 or 72 hours, to charge you. That's not the same thing at all, though.

They can fucking hold you for 72 hours, numb nuts.

[Audley Strange]

The transit of large amounts of currency has always been something the authorities are interested in, for many reasons, from economic warfare through to money laundering and many other reasons in between.

[Tero]

Jeez, don't they know how poor people send money? Western Union!

Obvious terrrorists, then.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not illegal to carry that much or more cash or valuables; it's illegal not to declare it to Customs.

Coito objects to just that on the grounds that carrying any amount of cash is not in itself a criminal act. He is right with that, but I agree that the legal obligation to declare amounts of cash carried above a certain arbitrarily determined threshold is justified for the same reason that exceeding the arbitrarily determined speed limits on roads can be a criminal offence even if no laws other than those pertaining to speed limits have been broken in the process.

Interesting argument, but the difference is that the speed limit is not "arbitrary." It is based on a policy determination concerning the safe operating speeds on highways. Roads are designed for higher speeds by having design attributes. Also, driving a car at 90MPH is more dangerous than driving at 50 MPH on most roads because of the fact that a person will generally have less time to react when driving 90 than 50. Most of the time, speed limits are not set "arbitrarily" but rather are set because of safety issues.

I have no qualms with the carrying of large sums of money being a factor that raises "suspicion" that the person may be up to something. What I object to is the requirement that EVERYONE -- including the 99.9% of the people who can't possibly carry huge sums of money in cash because they just don't have it -- being subjected to a "declaration" requirement (being forced to essentially testify against themselves under oath) by announcing to the government "what haz it gotz in itz pocketzes?" To me, proper course of action should require law enforcement to do their own investigating, and to not absolve themselves of having to find out criminal activity.

That's the purpose of all these kinds of laws - instead of prosecuting you for actually doing something wrong, they simply make the crime about whether you disclosed something or not. Then they can ignore whether the money was ill-gotten, and simply call it a felony to fail to disclose the money.

[Coito ergo sum]

They were probably smuggling money to Islamic terrorists in Lebanon which is where they were headed. She was on welfare, so how'd she get the $60K?

Great question. Worthy of investigation.

However, a person ought to be under no obligation to explain where they they got $60k. If someone asks me where I got my money, I'd say "from Go Fuck Yourself." Maybe I found it under a rock. Maybe I inherited it. Maybe I hit the lotto. Maybe I worked for it.

And, the last person I should have to explain myself to is a cop. That's why I have a "right to remain silent" and that's why I am not required to testify against myself.

[Bella Fortuna]

Hey, if I have to declare all the rare hummingbirds I have stuffed down my pants, people damn well have to declare their vast wads of cash they have in their bras!

[Coito ergo sum]

If by "custody" you meant a brief detention on the street or at the scene of an incident, then yes, I agree. However, your use of the phrase "take you into" custody suggested that you were referring to them taking a person somewhere. That they can't do, absent arresting you. Mine was a point of clarification.

They can hold you 72 hours without charging you. I see you avoided that point. Not surprised, it fucks your point all to hell. Have a nice life.

Of course it doesn't fuck my point to hell, or anywhere close. You're confusing different concepts. They can't take you into custody for questioning for 72 hours. That isn't permitted. They can arrest you and take you into custody on probable cause, and they have some period, whether 48 or 72 hours, to charge you. That's not the same thing at all, though.

They can fucking hold you for 72 hours, numb nuts.

Not merely "for questioning", dipshit.

[Bella Fortuna]

Why doesn't everyone knock off the name-calling, please? I'm about to declare that I'm smuggling some whoop-ass on my computer.