Mother and Teen Daughter Caught Smuggling Money!

[Coito ergo sum]

Every time I get on an international flight, I have to fill out a Customs form testifying that I'm not carrying over USD10,000. My understanding is that this is to prevent tax evasion. It's not illegal to carry that much or more cash or valuables; it's illegal not to declare it to Customs.

Not sure how that prevents "Tax evasion" -- since you get taxed on income, not the mere presence of money in your bank account or pocket.

It may identify large sums of money, and then spur an investigation into the person who has it to see if they did pay their taxes last year. But, we already have a banking system that keeps a record for the government of all withdrawals of over $10,000, even if done in several smaller chunks.

I mean - what can the government do here other than audit their last year's returns anyway? And, what if the person's answer is "I don't know where I got the money?" Does that make it illegal to have it? Does that mean tax is owed on it?

Really, it's a strong arm tactic, and nothing more. It puts people over a barrel and then you just have to do what they say. If they declare to you that they think you didn't pay tax on it, they'll either make you pay the tax or seize the whole thing as a penalty.

[pErvinalia]

There's a couple of reasons why it could be "tax avoidance". I mentioned one possibility earlier (regarding offshore investment/earnings), but no one responded. Another one is if you earned that cash off the books and you were shuffling it off to a tax haven somewhere.

[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.

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?

1. It is not illegal to take large sums of money with you. Doubt it all you want.
2. It's creating a crime because they don't make it illegal to have the money, they make it illegal not to tell them about the lawful money. I.e. you have to say something when you ought to have the right to remain silent, because anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, and you ought not have to testify against yourself.
3. What happens when you declare that you have over $10000 on you is that YOU the individual have the burden of proof to prove the money was not ill-gotten. That's un-American and un-English (and un-Canadian) in that the forfeiture action rules shifts the burden from the prosecution to the accused. If I'm sitting their bathing in a pile of cash, tossing it up in the air and such, and a cop or other agent comes up to me and says "prove that isn't ill-gotten money" -- what do you think I should be required to do?

[Coito ergo sum]

There's a couple of reasons why it could be "tax avoidance". I mentioned one possibility earlier (regarding offshore investment/earnings), but no one responded. Another one is if you earned that cash off the books and you were shuffling it off to a tax haven somewhere.

There is nothing unlawful about tax avoidance. Whole industries in the US are dedicated to avoiding taxes. Evading them, however, is another matter.

Both of those points are very good reasons to investigate. However, the point of the declaration is that you are forcing the accused to participate in the investigation against himself. And, it's a dragnet approach, because it makes everyone do this disclosing. It does make investigations easier for the cops, and also makes prosecutions and forfeitures easier. They can go present cases to judges that involve "here's a piece of paper with words on it. Those words were written by the defendant. They aren't true." Judge rules without more "seize the money and lock 'im up!"

[pErvinalia]

I just don't see the problem, given the potential criminalities involved in moving large sums of money undetected across borders.

[Coito ergo sum]

Here is a good blog entry with examples about why this whole thing should be something worth talking about. It's crept into the TSA inquiries. http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwit ... its-wrong/

For some reason, TSA wants to know why you have cash, too.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just don't see the problem, given the potential criminalities involved in moving large sums of money undetected across borders.

Since none of them involve flight safety, why are we worrying about that shit at the airport?

And, there are many potential criminalities -- yes -- but, why should that mean that we no longer have the right to remain silent? Why must we participate by answering potentially incriminating questions....

...especially in light of the IRS commissioner's refusal to answer questions based on her right to not incriminate herself. Shouldn't she have been required to "declare" the answers to the questions posed to her? Aren't we citizens too?





Weird -- was a time where we could count on people on "the left" to be suspicious of government power.

[pErvinalia]

I just don't see the problem, given the potential criminalities involved in moving large sums of money undetected across borders.

Since none of them involve flight safety, why are we worrying about that shit at the airport?

Because that is where it is detected. Obviously.

And, there are many potential criminalities -- yes -- but, why should that mean that we no longer have the right to remain silent? Why must we participate by answering potentially incriminating questions....

Because you aren't incriminating yourself by saying you have a large sum of money. You are only declaring that you have a large sum of money.

Weird -- was a time where we could count on people on "the left" to be suspicious of government power.

Obama and Europe are better than Bush and Merka.

[Cormac]

There's a couple of reasons why it could be "tax avoidance". I mentioned one possibility earlier (regarding offshore investment/earnings), but no one responded. Another one is if you earned that cash off the books and you were shuffling it off to a tax haven somewhere.

On a point of information that seems to get lost in discourse these days. "Tax avoidance" is perfectly legal. "Tax Evasion" is a crime.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I meant tax evasion.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just don't see the problem, given the potential criminalities involved in moving large sums of money undetected across borders.

Since none of them involve flight safety, why are we worrying about that shit at the airport?

Because that is where it is detected. Obviously.

it's only detected there because that is where they are worrying about it...

And, there are many potential criminalities -- yes -- but, why should that mean that we no longer have the right to remain silent? Why must we participate by answering potentially incriminating questions....

Because you aren't incriminating yourself by saying you have a large sum of money. You are only declaring that you have a large sum of money.

You may be incriminating yourself, depending on what they do with that answer, like if they prosecute you for tax evasion.

Weird -- was a time where we could count on people on "the left" to be suspicious of government power.

Obama and Europe are better than Bush and Merka.

For some time now, I have lamented the death of Liberalism in Merka. Was a time when a liberal had some balls. Now those calling themselves liberals are mostly bootlickers -

[pErvinalia]

I just don't see the problem, given the potential criminalities involved in moving large sums of money undetected across borders.

Since none of them involve flight safety, why are we worrying about that shit at the airport?

Because that is where it is detected. Obviously.

it's only detected there because that is where they are worrying about it...

FFS. If the issue is taking money out of the country undetected, how are you going to determine that's what they are doing anywhere other than at the fucking airport? Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?

And, there are many potential criminalities -- yes -- but, why should that mean that we no longer have the right to remain silent? Why must we participate by answering potentially incriminating questions....

Because you aren't incriminating yourself by saying you have a large sum of money. You are only declaring that you have a large sum of money.

You may be incriminating yourself, depending on what they do with that answer, like if they prosecute you for tax evasion.

That would seem to me to be stretching the definition of "incrimination". Do you have a precedent or reasoning to assume that answering whether you have cash on you is likely to be incriminatory?

And what about an analogy (more strictly incriminating than the case of the cash) with say a driver's license (or registration papers). The coppers are allowed to ask you to produce your license, aren't they? If you don't have one on you, isn't that an offence? It is here. So wouldn't that be incriminating yourself?

Weird -- was a time where we could count on people on "the left" to be suspicious of government power.

Obama and Europe are better than Bush and Merka.

For some time now, I have lamented the death of Liberalism in Merka. Was a time when a liberal had some balls. Now those calling themselves liberals are mostly bootlickers -

Exactly. Yurup is better than Merka.

[Svartalf]

Conservatives, however, AOLWAYS had a bootlicking streak when it came to their people if they were in power... that's why they are called conservative.

[Coito ergo sum]

Conservatives, however, AOLWAYS had a bootlicking streak when it came to their people if they were in power... that's why they are called conservative.

Very true. But, they never claimed otherwise -- they're always a law and order bunch. That's why conservatives tend to support forfeiture laws like this and other "law and order stuff," and they've tended to be disdainful of stuff like taking the 5th and Miranda rights and all that.

[Cormac]

I just don't see the problem, given the potential criminalities involved in moving large sums of money undetected across borders.

Since none of them involve flight safety, why are we worrying about that shit at the airport?

Because that is where it is detected. Obviously.

it's only detected there because that is where they are worrying about it...

FFS. If the issue is taking money out of the country undetected, how are you going to determine that's what they are doing anywhere other than at the fucking airport? Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?

And, there are many potential criminalities -- yes -- but, why should that mean that we no longer have the right to remain silent? Why must we participate by answering potentially incriminating questions....

Because you aren't incriminating yourself by saying you have a large sum of money. You are only declaring that you have a large sum of money.

You may be incriminating yourself, depending on what they do with that answer, like if they prosecute you for tax evasion.

That would seem to me to be stretching the definition of "incrimination". Do you have a precedent or reasoning to assume that answering whether you have cash on you is likely to be incriminatory?

And what about an analogy (more strictly incriminating than the case of the cash) with say a driver's license (or registration papers). The coppers are allowed to ask you to produce your license, aren't they? If you don't have one on you, isn't that an offence? It is here. So wouldn't that be incriminating yourself?

Weird -- was a time where we could count on people on "the left" to be suspicious of government power.

Obama and Europe are better than Bush and Merka.

For some time now, I have lamented the death of Liberalism in Merka. Was a time when a liberal had some balls. Now those calling themselves liberals are mostly bootlickers -

Exactly. Yurup is better than Merka.

In Ireland a copper is not entitled to ask me to identify myself and expect any response st all, unless he had reasonable suspicion that I am engaged in some kind of illegal activity. I am not obliged to carry identification, and I will never do so except where it suits me to do it, (or for example, when I need to travel overseas).