Military Camp

S. 1241 DEMAND REPORT TO FED CASH YOU KEEP AT HOME AND WHY

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,932
    96
    Spring
    If you're found to be in possession of any unreported cash, then it would be assumed to be from illicit activity and seized under civil asset forfeiture.
    You have the burden of proving otherwise.
    Generally speaking, when assets are seized under those circumstances, you do NOT have the burden of proving otherwise. It's the assets that must prove otherwise.

    We do all know, I hope, that as a holdover from English common law the government sues the money seized and it's up to the money to defend itself, right? Now, you can act on behalf of it but the suit is still styled "United States vs. $5000 in cash" or something similar.

    I don't like the fact that we still hold onto the vestiges of old laws that can find inanimate objects guilty of crimes but that's the situation we're in.

    At least these days if a limb falls out of a tree and kills you, the constable doesn't put the tree on trial for assault, find it guilty, and chop it down as punishment. We've moved past that...barely.
     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    Generally speaking, when assets are seized under those circumstances, you do NOT have the burden of proving otherwise. It's the assets that must prove otherwise.

    We do all know, I hope, that as a holdover from English common law the government sues the money seized and it's up to the money to defend itself, right? Now, you can act on behalf of it but the suit is still styled "United States vs. $5000 in cash" or something similar.

    I don't like the fact that we still hold onto the vestiges of old laws that can find inanimate objects guilty of crimes but that's the situation we're in.

    At least these days if a limb falls out of a tree and kills you, the constable doesn't put the tree on trial for assault, find it guilty, and chop it down as punishment. We've moved past that...barely.
    One of the reasons the forfeiture cases are styled in that manner is because at the time of filing, there is usually no one who is claiming ownership of that money. Often the funds are seized during traffic stops or searches and the driver of the car (some "mule") exclaims "that's not mine!" and signs a waiver of any ownership interest in the funds. The reasons why they (the mules) do that should be obvious. What gets interesting is when someone finally claims an interest in the funds and tries to weave their tale to somehow show that the funds are neither proceeds of criminal activity nor instrumentalities of same. Usually it's quite an amusing show, actually.
     

    TheDan

    deplorable malcontent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    27,536
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    What gets interesting is when someone finally claims an interest in the funds and tries to weave their tale to somehow show that the funds are neither proceeds of criminal activity nor instrumentalities of same. Usually it's quite an amusing show, actually.
    An adequate defense should be "none of your fucking business."

    It happens to more than just drug mules. I had a specific case in mind that happened in either Beaumont or Jasper from a few years ago, but it's been buried in the search results by similar cases. Here's one: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case
     

    Flewda

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 5, 2012
    1,179
    31
    Ohio (But my heart is in Texas)
    Sorry Mr. Government man, I was driving all my money in from my remote island to deposit it into the bank (per your request), and the damnedest thing happened: my boat sank :-\ - So, oh well. Also, all my guns were on it.

    Seriously, though, this is some scary crap. I want to put a certain amount into the bank so that I have some easy-access emergency cash no matter where I am, but in general after that I'd much rather it go in a safe somewhere. And why would the feds care about taking it out of circulation? They can just print more, right? It's just paper, right? :-\
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,932
    96
    Spring
    How is my money "in circulation" if it's in my bank account?
    Smart-ass answer - Go watch "It's A Wonderful Life" again. The scene where there's a run on the Building and Loan has a great capsule answer.

    But to be serious -

    The numbers quoted are random and for illustrative purposes only; there are regulations that set actual levels but that's beyond our scope.

    If you put $100 in the bank, you have $100. At the same time, the bank knows their customers are, in the aggregate, never likely to access more than, say, 10% of their funds at one time. So, they loan $90 to someone for their business. That person puts it in their bank which then loans out $80. The people who borrowed each, in their own mind, have "their" money.

    After just a couple of transactions, Cam, you have $100 in the bank and other parties have an additional $170. Basically, you put $100 in the bank and the net result was that $270 in account holdings was created of which, from your viewpoint, at least $170 is "in circulation". In reality, it's a lot bigger number than that.

    Banks create most money, by a long shot.
     

    HKShooter65

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Been following this thread a while.

    Trying to ascertain:
    it it
    1. Paranoid anti-government nonsense.
    or
    2. A representation of our society's laws.

    Suppose I do something quite plausible in August.....
    a. Sell 5 rifles I bought October 2016 (pre-election "investment") to three gunshow dealers, on their books, for $5,000 cash.
    b. Sell an old Jeep to a buddy for $4,000 cash. We transfer title and he pays the sales tax.
    c. Sell a bunch of silver to a pawn shop for $3,000 cash. Break even, darn it.
    d. Agree to safely store the $6,000 cash my wife has been saving in a Hellman's mayonnaise jar for a rainy day, frugal Irish that she is. She's saved $100 a month from the check I write to her butter-n-egg household account for 5 years.


    All above board and 100% legal.
    All four items , money loosing transactions so no income to report.
    I don't itemize to no loss to declare.


    So.
    Now, I'll have, $18,000 in US currency, one hundred and eighty $100 bills in a little imbedded floor-safe under my desk at work and plan to just let it be until I might need some quick cash for paying for a boat or some Viagra or whatever.

    Am I breaking any laws?
    Are you conspiracy theorists just confabulating?
    Are there actually laws that address my actions?

    Some here say yes...to these assertions but provide no substantive or credible reference whatsoever.

    I think I'd be breaking no laws.
    I suspect the government really does not care about me, an honest citizen.


    This is one of those threads that would benefit by the introduction of some facts.



    HKS
     
    Last edited:

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,733
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    Been following this thread a while.

    Trying to ascertain:
    it it
    1. Paranoid anti-government nonsense.
    or
    2. A representation of our society's laws.

    Suppose I do something quite plausible in August.....
    a. Sell 5 rifles I bought (pre-election "investment") to gunshow dealers, on their books, for $5,000 cash.
    b. Sell an old Jeep to a buddy for $4,000 cash.
    c. Sell a bunch of silver to a pawn shop for $3,000 cash.

    All above board and 100% legal.
    All three, money loosing transactions so no income to report.
    I don't itemize to no loss to declare.


    So.
    Now, I'll have one hundred and twenty $100 bills in a little safe under my desk at work and plan to just let it be until I might need some quick cash for paying for a boat or some Viagra or whatever.

    Am I breaking any laws?
    Are you conspiracy theorists just confabulating?
    Are there actually laws that address my actions?

    Some here say yes...to these assertions but provide no substantive or credible reference whatsoever.

    I think I'd be breaking no laws.
    I suspect the government really does not care about me, an honest citizen.


    This is one of those threads that would benefit by the introduction of some facts.



    HKS
    Only thing "little" safes are good for is providing convenient carrying cases for thieves....
     

    HKShooter65

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,932
    96
    Spring
    Standard IANAL disclaimer, btw.
    Am I breaking any laws?
    No.
    Are you conspiracy theorists just confabulating?
    That's just what they do.
    Are there actually laws that address my actions?
    Yes, but they aren't impacted by SB1241.
    I think I'd be breaking no laws.
    I think you'd be right.
    I suspect the government really does not care about me, an honest citizen.
    In the context of SB1241, you're certainly right about that.
    This is one of those threads that would benefit by the introduction of some facts.
    But then it would be nowhere near as fun!

    All you have to do, really, is read the bill. Well, that, and you also need a basic understanding of the workflow of the federal government when large amounts of cash are transferred into or out of financial institutions or physically moved out of the country. Add in a passing familiarity with parts of 18 USC and 31 USC and you're golden.

    1241 has mostly to do with money laundering and addresses cash crossing our borders. Of course, whenever bills try to address crimes of this sort, they inevitably also manage to impact domestic considerations, too. I'll address that briefly toward the end.

    The required reporting of cash in your personal possession while crossing the border comes into play via a FinCen form which you fill out and hand to customs. This is nothing new.

    What's new is that the bill effectively expands the definition of cash (though that's not the technical mechanism in use but it's decent shorthand for an informal discussion like this) so that gift cards, blank checks, etc. would become subject to the same reporting requirements. Theoretically, moving cryptocurrency is also to be made subject to reporting and that's one helluva fuzzy area. I suspect the BitCoin folks have their hair on fire over this but normal people will not be impacted. They, however, are a bunch of folks who are quite good at getting people riled up online and those same people will often pass along mis-reported crap as if the brownshirts were about to kick in your door.

    There's also an expanded definition of the sorts of money movement subject to reporting requirements when the money is moved via hawalas and similar networks. That could be construed as anti-brown-people so there's another group that has reasons to proclaim that the sky is falling and thus feed online paranoia.

    Frankly, I'm finding some of this a little hard to follow in spots because my USC isn't up to date and it looks like parts of 31 USC have been moved to 18 USC under different chapter numbers. The gist of it is pretty clear, though.

    For the most part, it only has to do with cross-border money laundering and financial crimes of which no one around here should ever run afoul.

    There is a slightly interesting exception to that summary, though. Whenever you see a bill add a whole new section to a subchapter, that tends to be significant. In this case, the gotcha isn't a big one but it's interesting. 31 USC Subtitle IV Chapter 53 Subchapter II gets a new section to be designated 5333 that makes it a crime to conceal the owner or person who controls an account with a financial institution. Max penalty is 10 years and a $1M fine. 5333 also contains a civil forfeiture section which means that, effectively, when you get accused you're gonna lose the money either when you get convicted or when a preponderance of the evidence goes against you. They're kinda stacking the deck to punish people who set up shell accounts in the name of their kids and dogs where those accounts are actually controlled by the bad guy who conceals that fact from the institution. It's pretty broad in potential application but the real-world application of it is severely limited to use as an add-on after other financial crimes have already led the authorities to investigate your accounts. If you open an account for your kid and, when asked, freely admit that you control the account for your 10-year-old, you're good to go.

    There's also a similar new section 5334 but that only deals with concealing $1M+ dealings with senior political figures. I hope none of us has that sort of shenanigans in our wheelhouse.

    In the scenarios you outlined, you run afoul of the law only if you try to hide the money while moving it in or out of the country in amounts of $10K or more; or try to hide who actually controls the money if you deposit it with a financial institution.

    Normal human beings should have no worries unless they truly enjoy losing sleep worrying that the big, bad wolf...errr...government is coming to get them.
     

    HKShooter65

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    .......All you have to do, really, is read the bill.........

    Agree.

    In this order:

    1. Read the bill and be utterly befuddled.
    2. Study hard as a law school student, 4 years.
    3. Pass the bar exam.
    4. Re-read the bill and find that I am only slightly less befuddled.
    5. Trust our lawmakers to do the right thing. After all, they are mostly attorneys.

    HKS
     
    Top Bottom