Mother and Teen Daughter Caught Smuggling Money!

[PsychoSerenity]

Coito, do you not have to declare income and such for tax purposes each year? And are you bothered about all the electronic transfers of money where records are kept automatically?

[Svartalf]

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.

Excuse me? people living off disability and a paper route ought not to explain how they came by 60K? There's an actual mystery likely to interest many people there, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's NOT "perfectly legal" to take large sums of cash out of the country. Your argument is getting confused. I do agree, however, about the wrongness of them seizing the money without any legal reason to suspect it was used for criminal purposes.

Sure it is legal. Well, it's not against American law to take large sums of cash out of the US. It may be against Australian law to take cash out of Australia, that I don't know.

And, your objection to the seizing of the money is exactly why I raised this whole thing. They create a crime by asking people disclose things.

[Svartalf]

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.

<Hides the can opener>

[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.

Excuse me? people living off disability and a paper route ought not to explain how they came by 60K? There's an actual mystery likely to interest many people there, though.

Absolutely. Nobody has to answer a question from the cops or other government investigators. They shouldn't anyway, because we have "the right to remain silent," and we have a 5th amendment right not to testify against ourselves.

I don't have to tell a cop where I work because he thinks I look like someone who ought not have a nice car. Fuck him. And, if I say "I paid for it with food stamps" he can go fuck himself. How's that? I am using that kind of language to make the point -- ABSOLUTELY -- yes indeed nobody ought to be under an obligation to explain where they got $60k. You know why? Because most of us couldn't explain where we got all our money -- not in any rock-solid specific sense. We might say "I had a job" or something, but after a time, receipts are gone, check stubs are gone and you can have a guy who worked in an auto plant in Detroit all his life with 7 figures in the bank because he was frugal as hell, but he would have no fucking way in hell of proving "where he got the money."

Yes, it is interesting - and if I were the cops I would want to know where she got the money. But, SHE has a right to remain silent. And, they can go do their investigation. Get a warrant, if they have probable cause. Interview associates. Do the fucking investigation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not merely "for questioning", dipshit.

Try not to do anything stupid, I'd hate to hear you were locked up for three days.

[Tyrannical]

It's NOT "perfectly legal" to take large sums of cash out of the country. Your argument is getting confused. I do agree, however, about the wrongness of them seizing the money without any legal reason to suspect it was used for criminal purposes.

Sure it is legal. Well, it's not against American law to take large sums of cash out of the US. It may be against Australian law to take cash out of Australia, that I don't know.

And, your objection to the seizing of the money is exactly why I raised this whole thing. They create a crime by asking people disclose things.

She could have legally exited Canada and entered the US with the money if she had only declared it to customs. Instead she smuggled it which is a crime.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, do you not have to declare income and such for tax purposes each year? And are you bothered about all the electronic transfers of money where records are kept automatically?

Banks keeping records of transfers is not the same thing as individuals being required to declare things like this. I'm "bothered" by the notion that from this time forward, almost everything we do in life is going to be recorded and kept indefinitely. Every phone call every transaction, etc. But, I do not see it as equivalent that my bank keeps a record of a wire transfer (which they would have to do in order to be able to prove they made the transfer as promised), and being compelled by government to tell them how much money I have in my pocket.

The tax law on this issue is very complicated, but you can refuse to disclose the source of income based on the 5th Amendment self-incrimination principles. United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10 th Cir. 1979). You can't refuse to disclose the "amount" of income. Yes, we do have to tell the IRS what our income was, if it was high enough to have to file a return. However, if you made no income and owe no tax, you don't have to do anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not merely "for questioning", dipshit.

Try not to do anything stupid, I'd hate to hear you were locked up for three days.

For someone who doesn't like this thread, you sure spend enough time on it...without contributing anything meaningful.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Shall I report to HR for "counseling"?

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Bella Fortuna]

[pErvinalia]

It's NOT "perfectly legal" to take large sums of cash out of the country. Your argument is getting confused. I do agree, however, about the wrongness of them seizing the money without any legal reason to suspect it was used for criminal purposes.

Sure it is legal. Well, it's not against American law to take large sums of cash out of the US. It may be against Australian law to take cash out of Australia, that I don't know.

And, your objection to the seizing of the money is exactly why I raised this whole thing. They create a crime by asking people disclose things.

If there's no problem with taking large sums out of the US (which I highly doubt), then how are "they" creating a crime? If you can freely take money out of the country, and if you declare it, what's the problem?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not merely "for questioning", dipshit.

Try not to do anything stupid, I'd hate to hear you were locked up for three days.

For someone who doesn't like this thread, you sure spend enough time on it...without contributing anything meaningful.

When did I say I didn't like this thread? You're so much fun!

And don't overestimate your own "contributions", they should be cleaned up with gloves and a bleach solution.

[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?

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.

Excuse me? people living off disability and a paper route ought not to explain how they came by 60K? There's an actual mystery likely to interest many people there, though.

Absolutely. Nobody has to answer a question from the cops or other government investigators. They shouldn't anyway, because we have "the right to remain silent," and we have a 5th amendment right not to testify against ourselves.

I don't have to tell a cop where I work because he thinks I look like someone who ought not have a nice car. Fuck him. And, if I say "I paid for it with food stamps" he can go fuck himself. How's that? I am using that kind of language to make the point -- ABSOLUTELY -- yes indeed nobody ought to be under an obligation to explain where they got $60k. You know why? Because most of us couldn't explain where we got all our money -- not in any rock-solid specific sense. We might say "I had a job" or something, but after a time, receipts are gone, check stubs are gone and you can have a guy who worked in an auto plant in Detroit all his life with 7 figures in the bank because he was frugal as hell, but he would have no fucking way in hell of proving "where he got the money."

Yes, it is interesting - and if I were the cops I would want to know where she got the money. But, SHE has a right to remain silent. And, they can go do their investigation. Get a warrant, if they have probable cause. Interview associates. Do the fucking investigation.

Don't you have to do tax returns in the US explaining how much money you earn each year?

[Audley Strange]

This might help....

http://www.ice.gov/bulk-cash-smuggling-center/faq/