Be Careful with U.S. Customs -- A Cautionary Tale

[valhalla360]

People are confusing the literal crossing the boarder with the process of exiting the country.

Let's put it in boating terms. You check out but don't raise anchor for a couple hours waiting on the tide. The agents are long gone, nothing to physically stop you from going back to shore. They trust you to leave. Same as when this guy checked in for an outbound set of flights that leave the country.

If you check out on the boat with $50k on board and don't say anything, claiming you were going to call and notify them before weighing anchor isn't going to cut it because you provided the notice that you were on the way out already. In an airport scenario, that's when you make that commitment that you are leaving. The only difference is it's baked into the check-in and security process, so unless you have an unusual situation (such as carrying large amounts of cash out of the country), it's not a stand alone process. The presumption if you show your passport and get boarding passes for an international flight is that you are in process to leave the country.

Again, if they don't have evidence of crime and aren't going to bring charges, it should be a quick and simple process to get the money back but the original confiscation appears in this case to be appropriate.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

...Again, if they don't have evidence of crime and aren't going to bring charges, it should be a quick and simple process to get the money back but the original confiscation appears in this case to be appropriate.

I think the real argument here is that one of the hallmarks of a free society is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the case of civil forfeiture, the people are presumed guilty, and then THEY have to prove they are innocent.

If authorities have a reasonable belief based on actual evidence that a crime has been committed, then I’m all for police intervention. Bring charges. Arrest the person. Confiscate the money. Allow judicial due process to proceed.

None of this is happening in these cases. That is the issue.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Obviously there are people posting here who have never traveled to a cash only society. Our trip to Belize required cash for everything and you can’t simply go to an atm to pull $2000 to pay for a boat rental. We started out with a couple grand and some days had to hit multiple banks with multiple cards to get the required cash for a simple vacation.

We’ve been to Belize twice over the past few years... our credit cards were welcome everywhere we went including the ATM right at the warf where we also booked a zip line-ATV adventure for four, all using a VISA card. Nice place, friendly people.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I think the real argument here is that one of the hallmarks of a free society is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the case of civil forfeiture, the people are presumed guilty, and then THEY have to prove they are innocent.

If authorities have a reasonable belief based on actual evidence that a crime has been committed, then I’m all for police intervention. Bring charges. Arrest the person. Confiscate the money. Allow judicial due process to proceed.

None of this is happening in these cases. That is the issue.

But the evidence we have is they were guilty. They failed to report the transport of large sums of cash across the border. As with all countries (including free societies), the country still retains the right to control import and export activities and efforts to evade those controls are illegal.

Now if it was a simple mistake on the Albanian's part with no illegal intent and no evidence of any other crime, there should be a simple and timely method to get the money back but the original confiscation was appropriate.

This is far different from the you had a broken tail light and we decided to take your car stories. That is legalized theft by the police but much different from this situation.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Depends how you travel.

I very rarely spend money at places that take plastic

That's perfectly fine but you lose the advantage (depending on your point of view) that you now have the burden of reporting the transfer of money out of the country if it's large amounts of cash.

Getting pulled into the banking system may have it's issues (may even be a secret cabal out to get you ) but they handle the reporting requirements for you.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

But the evidence we have is they were guilty. They failed to report the transport of large sums of cash across the border. As with all countries (including free societies), the country still retains the right to control import and export activities and efforts to evade those controls are illegal.

Now if it was a simple mistake on the Albanian's part with no illegal intent and no evidence of any other crime, there should be a simple and timely method to get the money back but the original confiscation was appropriate.

This is far different from the you had a broken tail light and we decided to take your car stories. That is legalized theft by the police but much different from this situation.

It is a choice to make the transport of large amounts of cash a crime in itself. As someone said, why don’t we confiscate diamond rings or expensive watches then? They could easily be valued at more than $10k.

Beyond that, and has been cited, while there should be a "simple and timely method to get the money back”, the actual experience shows this is not the case. There have been many citing here on this thread that show how hard it can be.

If a crime is suspected, then the minimum standard in a free society is that there must be sufficient evidence to warrant charges. If charges cannot be laid, then this is an arbitrary exercise of authority — the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

[Copacabana]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

On what basis do you believe that he did not intend to file his report? How would you or anyone else know? And why would you think he wasn't going to report it? It was all completely legal money, taxes paid, withdrawn from a bank account -- why would he not report it?

And do you really think it is OK to confiscate 12 years worth of someone's savings, because you believe that he might fail to make his report, and do it before his report is even due? I just can't imagine the ethical gymnastics which must be required to get to such a conclusion. Punishing someone, for something they haven't even done yet, because you think he MIGHT! That's just weird! The only case of that I know where such a practice was widespread was the USSR in the 1930's, and of course Orwell talks about it in 1984 ("thought crime").





This is just false, that there is not honest purpose to carry $5000 in cash (!). Half or more of the world is still a cash society. Many of your fellow cruisers on here carry thousands or tens of thousand of dollars in cash because they are going to countries where banking doesn't work the same way as it does here. Less than half of human beings on earth even have bank accounts. Probably a majority of the world buys and sells even houses and land with cash. I've done it myself. And even in the U.S., maybe we don't buy houses and land with cash anymore, but plenty of people still buy stuff like cars with cash (and there was a case in Tennessee, discussed in the video posted above, where a guy had $20,000 taken from him when he was simply on his way to buy a truck, and he even had proof with him that this is what he was going to do).

Why do you presume that this guy was on his way to pay bribes? On what basis? What kind of society is that, that takes away the fruit of someone's labor, just because one CBP agent thinks he might fail to file a report which is not even due yet, or because he might be on his way to pay a bribe?

Money laundering and bribery are crimes, and they should be. But there is this little thing called due process -- ever heard of it? Due process means that we don't punish people -- we don't throw people in jail, we don't shoot them on the street, and we don't confiscate their houses and property, just because some LEO thinks they might be on their way to commit a crime, without a shred of evidence. That's the way it's done in crappy dictatorships, not in civilized democratic countries.

In civilized countries, the cops are required to have evidence, present that evidence to a prosecutor, and convict the person in court. You have standards of proof, and you have another branch looking at the case as a check and balance. That's called due process, and it's a pillar of civilization -- it's a key aspect of civilization. We don't allow cops to punish people on the spot based on their guesses or prejudices. Taking away someone's life savings is a punishment which is worse than spending time in jail, for many, many people.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. Dockhead, thanks for your rational, articulate and sane contribution.

I just want to add one thing to this discussion. Those who have mentioned that he should have wired the money perhaps haven't tried to wire that much abroad to an account in another person's name. Wire transfers are subject to the same scrutiny as carrying cash. International banking regulations have made wiring money very complicated (for private individuals especially), except when you can produce an invoice (or similar) to justify the transfer. As of January 2018, there is an international cooperation agreement in effect where the information is shared between countries. I can tell you for a fact, it's not easy anymore to just wire money to someone without having to justify it, fill out forms and risk being investigated. Every time I receive a wire with my United Nations consulting fees, I have to jump through all kinds of international bureaucratic hoops (and last time I checked, the UN wasn't a criminal organization).

There are all sorts of reasons for wanting to carry the funds in cash to his home country, including avoiding the predatory exchange rates practiced by banks in some countries (Brazil being a good example). There is nothing illegal about carrying declared money that you can prove was earned legitimately and has taxes paid. I really hope this man can get his money back.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

e If charges cannot be laid, then this is an arbitrary exercise of authority — the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

BINGO....
A revolutionary war was fought and won over this and as History of Governments show...here we go again, it always ends the same.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Copacabana

the UN wasn't a criminal organization. .

Thats debatable....highly....

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It is a choice to make the transport of large amounts of cash a crime in itself. As someone said, why don’t we confiscate diamond rings or expensive watches then? They could easily be valued at more than $10k.

Beyond that, and has been cited, while there should be a "simple and timely method to get the money back”, the actual experience shows this is not the case. There have been many citing here on this thread that show how hard it can be.

If a crime is suspected, then the minimum standard in a free society is that there must be sufficient evidence to warrant charges. If charges cannot be laid, then this is an arbitrary exercise of authority — the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

The transport was not the issue. No one is claiming it is the issue.

The issue is not reporting it. The $10k rule is cash or equivalents, so if you start buying diamonds to use in trade with the intent of circumventing the rule, they have it covered by the "equivalents".

Of course unless you are in the industry (and probably even if you are in the industry), it's a pretty stupid approach as the resale value of a diamond is no where close to the retail price, so you are almost guaranteed to lose 50% or more of your money in the transaction.

Also, there are rules for transporting goods across the border. They generally don't challenge you over personal effects as the presumption is they are for personal use and will return with you but try taking a dozen $10k rolex watches and expect a similar situation if you don't report the activity. Now if you buy a single rolex to act as a cash equivalent you can sell for cash on arrival, you might get away with it but getting away with it and being legal and legitimate are different things.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

People are confusing the literal crossing the boarder with the process of exiting the country.

Let's put it in boating terms. You check out but don't raise anchor for a couple hours waiting on the tide. The agents are long gone, nothing to physically stop you from going back to shore. They trust you to leave. Same as when this guy checked in for an outbound set of flights that leave the country.

If you check out on the boat with $50k on board and don't say anything, claiming you were going to call and notify them before weighing anchor isn't going to cut it because you provided the notice that you were on the way out already. In an airport scenario, that's when you make that commitment that you are leaving. The only difference is it's baked into the check-in and security process, so unless you have an unusual situation (such as carrying large amounts of cash out of the country), it's not a stand alone process. The presumption if you show your passport and get boarding passes for an international flight is that you are in process to leave the country.

Again, if they don't have evidence of crime and aren't going to bring charges, it should be a quick and simple process to get the money back but the original confiscation appears in this case to be appropriate.

Except that it doesn't work like that, not in any respect.

The procedure for declaring cash is to declare it at the international terminal at the airport from which your international flight departs, and not anywhere else. That is a fact. Call CPB and ask if you don't believe us.

And it is also absolutely false that it is a "quick and simple process to get money back" if there is no evidence of a crime. That is the entire problem we are talking about here. There are thousands of cases where there is not even any investigation (!) of a crime, much less are charges brought, and they keep the cash or property until and unless you sue them and win. According to the very wrong and unconstitutional procedure -- the burden of proof is on the guy whose cash or other property was confiscated to prove that it he has the right to get it back, and to prove that costs money, and most people don't even try -- that's one reason and one perverse incentive why this procedure is used so eagerly. It raises a lot of money with minimal effort.

In this case, no charges were filed. There was no allegation that he failed to declare the cash or even that they suspected he would fail to declare it. The case notes simply say that they thought the cash was "artfully concealed" and that he gave inconsistent answers when questioned (without an interpreter), that he had no verifiable source of income (which is false). That's it. In other words, they just didn't like the way he looked or talked and didn't believe that such a guy could be up to anything good with that amount of cash, and didn't have a shred of any kind of real evidence of anything. Not only did they not file any charges or even start an investigation, they didn't even file the one-page civil forfeiture motion needed to keep the money. So now they obviously and clearly have to give the money back, and yet they continue to hold onto it. And they will just keep it until they are forced to give it back by a court, and the reason why they do that is that many people give up along the way. The case is absolutely outrageous on its face, and has attracted condemnation not only from the advocacy groups involved (of both left-wing and right-wing persuasion), but also from:

CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/02/u...ken/index.html

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.162c947bb1e8

The libertarian journal Reason: https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/31/a...f-58100-life-s

Fox News: US Customs seizes Ohio family’s life savings at airport | fox8.com

National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...without-cause/

Washington Examiner: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...m-with-a-crime


Outrage over the case has been universal, and has cut across all political and ideological lines.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

you might get away with it but getting away with it and being legal and legitimate are different things.

Ya....ask the Feds...thats how much of what they do today works.

Stingray Sying
Blame it on the Russians.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And it is also absolutely false that it is a "quick and simple process to get money back" if there is no evidence of a crime. That is the entire problem we are talking about here. There are thousands of cases where there is not even any investigation (!) of a crime, much less are charges brought, and they keep the cash or property until and unless you sue them and win. According to the very wrong and unconstitutional procedure -- the burden of proof is on the guy whose cash or other property was confiscated to prove that it he has the right to get it back, and to prove that costs money, and most people don't even try -- that's one reason and one perverse incentive why this procedure is used so eagerly. It raises a lot of money with minimal effort.

Go back and re-read. I said IT SHOULD BE quick and simple...This is potentially an issue in this case if the media hype is true (huge IF). This is a legal issue where we need to break down the parts of the case and deal with them independently. Forfeit when there are no charges or intent to ever file charges is a huge issue and needs to be fixed but the original forfeit appears to be perfectly legitimate. It very much is the way the system works that you are committing to leave the country when you check in and go thru security at the initial airport.

The time and hassle to get the money back is the part where there may be an issue with this case but we don't have enough info to know. I've misquoted by enough "journalists" to not trust them for anything factual. Most of your stories are regurgitations of the same AP story with no independent research. Several are word for word the same story. So the media all joining together on a click bait story doesn't mean much.

There are other much better cases of forfeit for us to be outraged about. While this couple may or may not be caught up in a corrupt system, they voluntarily jumped into it. I'd rather spend my outrage on those who don't bring it on themselves by not following the rules.

PS: I'll be keeping an eye on this story. Every time I see one of these stories about boarder issues, a week or two later a clarifying story finds it's way out and totally changes the situation, hence my assumption that we aren't getting the full and unbiased story.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Every time I see one of these stories about boarder issues, a week or two later a clarifying story finds it's way out and totally changes the situation.

Sounds exactly like the fake Russian Collusion News. Weeks or Months later we find out that the news story was bogus....yet the Fake Narrative lives on and some folks even believe it....mission achomplished of course because when the Deep State dont like you...they Get you.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ya....ask the Feds.

I'm not challenging you there but civil forfeiture is mostly a local agency issue. The worst abuses by far are at the city level (or other smaller level agencies).

At the federal level, the money doesn't necessarily go back to the agency and even if it does the agency is large enough that individual agents don't see any direct benefit. If an abuse occurs in NY but you are from Arizona, you Arizona reps, still have the same level of oversight of the agency as the NY reps.

At the city level, it often goes back to the police department directly and in a small city with a dozen cops, that could mean a few thousand in extra overtime, new fun equipment, higher pay raises, etc... A very direct and real conflict of interest. Also, it's fairly easy to confiscate stuff from those outside the jurisdiction so there is no angry voter to deal with.