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

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Go back and re-read. I said IT SHOULD BE quick and simple...

Ah, sorry for misunderstanding you.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

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

Agreed!

Originally Posted by valhalla360

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.

If Kazazi had violated the reporting requirements, I would agree with you.

But he did not. You firmly insist on a case against Kazazi, which CBP didn't make, based on your misunderstanding about how and where you file Form 105.

The Forfeiture Notice, containing CBP's reasons for seizing the cash, is available online here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e_Redacted.pdf

There is not one word about failing to declare the cash -- that was never alleged, and is not the basis of the case.



Here is the Kazazis' court filing: http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/201...erty-Filed.pdf. All the facts of case are presented there as sworn statements under penalty of perjury.

[a64pilot]

If you violate the reporting requirements, you lose all your money with no due process?
BS, you don’t ever have any action taken against you without due process, and you certainly don’t have variable fines that amount to all you have.
Get pulled for speeding and cop asks how much money you have? Think that’s right?

[a64pilot]

Out of curiosity I looked up the forfeitures.gov site. There are several agencies listed, this is CBP.
Seems there are 603 pages of property? Seems like it’s more prevelsnt that I knew about.
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/CBP/O...tification.pdf

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

If you violate the reporting requirements, you lose all your money with no due process?
BS, you don’t ever have any action taken against you without due process, and you certainly don’t have variable fines that amount to all you have.
Get pulled for speeding and cop asks how much money you have? Think that’s right?

Nope … sounds just like a Banana Republic, or your typical totalitarian state. Always thought our Western democracies were supposed to be better than this.

And I think they used to be … until we all got scared of the future and began handing our freedoms over to the Big Men who promise to keep us safe.

I understand the reason for forfieture practices — makes the job of police a heck of lot easier. No need with all that hard stuff around building a case, finding sufficient evidence, or even establishing just cause. Guilty until proven innocent is always easier, and is more the norm throughout history, and throughout the world.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If Kazazi had violated the reporting requirements, I would agree with you.

But he did not. You firmly insist on a case against Kazazi, which CBP didn't make, based on your misunderstanding about how and where you file Form 105.

The Forfeiture Notice, containing CBP's reasons for seizing the cash, is available online here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e_Redacted.pdf

There is not one word about failing to declare the cash -- that was never alleged, and is not the basis of the case.

Here is the Kazazis' court filing: http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/201...erty-Filed.pdf. All the facts of case are presented there as sworn statements under penalty of perjury.

Failure to report could easily fall under activities incidental to smuggling. Smuggling is listed on the notice. So not calling out the failure to fill out the form can still be pursued as justification for the initial confiscation by the govt lawyers if needed without conflicting with this notice.

There may also be drug or money laundering evidence that obviously the Albanian's lawyer isn't going to bring up and failing to report again could be incidental to those activities and justification for the initial action.

If we give the officials the benefit of the doubt, they appear to have a strong case for the initial action. (yeah some people will go on about all officials are corrupt but until proven otherwise, the court system must assume they aren't until proven otherwise.)

So the question at this point: Is 8 months a "REASONABLE" time to hold the money (confiscated Oct 27, 2017)?

If there really is nothing else behind the scenes and the decision not to pursue a case was made say in December, that is too long in my mind.

If there is something else going on behind the scenes, 8 months may be reasonable but we really don't know enough to say.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Out of curiosity I looked up the forfeitures.gov site. There are several agencies listed, this is CBP.
Seems there are 603 pages of property? Seems like it’s more prevelsnt that I knew about.
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/CBP/O...tification.pdf

Did you read it? I scanned thru the first dozen pages and there was no cash listed. I finally did a search and it was page 145 before I found an item that was "cash". It was $1,660, so not relevant to the $10k reporting requirements. I had to google it but the law referenced because they were charged with bringing in or harboring illegal aliens.

The USA is a big country, so 600 pages isn't as big as it sounds, especially when the 99% are not related to the reporting requirements.

[a64pilot]

It is a whole lot of property that is being seized without due process.
It’s not just cash, it’s anything they want to seize apparently. Look at the number of automobiles, think your boat is any different?
Show up in the US with some fruit you forgot about or other food stuffs or anything else prohibited, maybe something you bought that is made from Ivory, but you didn’t know that.
Well your smuggling aren’t you? Kiss the boat good by without any due process. Think that’s right?

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by cyan

Exactly.
The history here is a bit ironic, really...

The American Revolution that led to those personal freedoms was, in part, triggered by the British "Writ of Assistance". In the American colonies around 1760, Writs of Assistance were used by British customs officials to search and to seize any property of their choosing WITHOUT a warrant. Civil forfeiture by Customs. (sound familiar?) They didn't need a judge or a warrant and people rightly protested. Troops were sent in. Big war. Good guys win. US Constitution gets written and amended with the 4th Amendment that protects US citizens from unlawful search and seizure in 1791.

Reluctantly we let you guys run the place for 235 years, so what have you achieved in that time? You need to give that bronze statue back to the French, at least they only chopped the heads of the nobility not rob everyone.

Have you guys thought of a nice letter to Her Majesty asking if you can come back?

Pete

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Failure to report could easily fall under activities incidental to smuggling. Smuggling is listed on the notice. So not calling out the failure to fill out the form can still be pursued as justification for the initial confiscation by the govt lawyers if needed without conflicting with this notice.

There may also be drug or money laundering evidence that obviously the Albanian's lawyer isn't going to bring up and failing to report again could be incidental to those activities and justification for the initial action.

If we give the officials the benefit of the doubt, they appear to have a strong case for the initial action. (yeah some people will go on about all officials are corrupt but until proven otherwise, the court system must assume they aren't until proven otherwise.)

So the question at this point: Is 8 months a "REASONABLE" time to hold the money (confiscated Oct 27, 2017)?

If there really is nothing else behind the scenes and the decision not to pursue a case was made say in December, that is too long in my mind.

If there is something else going on behind the scenes, 8 months may be reasonable but we really don't know enough to say.

Well, he did not fail to report, because the obligation does not arise until you pass through the International Zone of the airport where you make your international departure. If he had failed to report, this would have been mentioned in the Notice of Seizure. Those are the simplest and easiest facts to prove, and always what they start with first. If you read other cases, that's all they say, when the basis is failure to report.

What happened here is that CBP simply made a presumption that he must have been doing "smuggling/money laundering/terrorism" simply by having that much money on him. Or judging by how few of such cases are actually accompanied by filing criminal charges, they didn't presume anything at all, they just grabbed the cash from a scared and foreign person as their normal practice.

If there were a shred of evidence, they would have mentioned it. They state "enforcement activities" -- that means what they saw and how he behaved during their interrogation of him, and in fact they described what that was -- couldn't answer the questions, "structuring activities", etc etc. What they meant by "structuring activities", we know exactly -- he had with him all of the bank statements and withdrawal checks, and you can see them online. There was no structuring, which is why they never charged him with that, either. That was just a knee jerk reaction to seeing the bank documents.

It's very obvious what happened here from plenty of undisputed facts, which is why the outrage about the case is universal.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

It is a whole lot of property that is being seized without due process.
It’s not just cash, it’s anything they want to seize apparently. Look at the number of automobiles, think your boat is any different?
Show up in the US with some fruit you forgot about or other food stuffs or anything else prohibited, maybe something you bought that is made from Ivory, but you didn’t know that.
Well your smuggling aren’t you? Kiss the boat good by without any due process. Think that’s right?

Where does it say these were confiscated without due process?

The list doesn't say if there were charges or what the outcome of those charges are. You are jumping to the assumption that these were all confiscated as part of the reporting requirements and were done without due process.

If you show up at the border with trunk full of drugs, expect them to take the car, put you in custody, give you due process and once convicted sell the car as part of the due process. The car is likely to wind up on this list.

This is the problem with many of these click bait stories. There are plenty of legitimate clear cut stories they could provide but I my impression is this one was picked up not because it was clear cut (it's not) but the media lately have an agenda to push that all immigrants (legal or illegal) are great people that we should welcome them and enforcing our border is bad.

PS: It's a fear mongering to suggest that you forgot a banana in your bag and they are going to take everything. If you buy ivory and bring it in, you broke the law. Ignorance of the law doesn't cut it.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

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.

I do not think a single member here thinks that.

I think it's quite likely you don't yourself. Are you even **reading** the many facts presented to you above that contradict that silly opinion?

And again, **even if** this guy turns out to be a paedophile hacker narco-terrorist money launderer, that would not change anything about how our legal system should work.

The way things were supposed to be - before 9/11 - gave law enforcement all powers necessary to effectively fight these "existential threats to western civilisation".

The widespread changes since then have only undermined **our** rights as citizens. In effect letting the terrorists win, and more and more every year, with every drone strike, every black site, every move toward supporting our client-state terrorists, we play into their hands.

The enemies within that Eisenhower warned us about just invent enemies, create them from whole cloth in order to justify no longer just massive military / surveillance spending, but actually taking power directly, away from the public-spirited **civilians** who are supposed to be running the show.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, he did not fail to report, because the obligation does not arise until you pass through the International Zone of the airport where you make your international departure. If he had failed to report, this would have been mentioned in the Notice of Seizure. Those are the simplest and easiest facts to prove, and always what they start with first. If you read other cases, that's all they say, when the basis is failure to report.

What happened here is that CBP simply made a presumption that he must have been doing "smuggling/money laundering/terrorism" simply by having that much money on him. Or judging by how few of such cases are actually accompanied by filing criminal charges, they didn't presume anything at all, they just grabbed the cash from a scared and foreign person as their normal practice.

If there were a shred of evidence, they would have mentioned it. They state "enforcement activities" -- that means what they saw and how he behaved during their interrogation of him, and in fact they described what that was -- couldn't answer the questions, "structuring activities", etc etc. What they meant by "structuring activities", we know exactly -- he had with him all of the bank statements and withdrawal checks, and you can see them online. There was no structuring, which is why they never charged him with that, either. That was just a knee jerk reaction to seeing the bank documents.

It's very obvious what happened here from plenty of undisputed facts, which is why the outrage about the case is universal.

Where is this "international zone"? I fly out of Detroit frequently, there is no separate international vs domestic zone for outgoing passengers. We are all in the same terminal with no separation or security between gates (I have been to a few international airports that have separate international terminals that domestic departing passengers can't access but I've flown out of several in the states where there is no separate international zone). Incoming passengers are separated when they come up the gate based on international vs domestic. When I've connected from nearby airports thru Detroit, I am past security with no interaction with govt officials once I clear the checking and security at the first airport. There is no separate international zone.

With a notice like this, it's very common to keep it simple and generic. It's basically a form letter that covers a wide variety of situations. There are often time limits for the officials to provide notice and this allows them to get them out quickly (the downside of strict reporting requirements). This is basically the equivalent of your lawyer telling you not to say anything because it can be used against you later. If they try to customize the notice with too much detail and there isn't time for the lawyers to thoroughly review it, it's easy to kill a case based on something mistakenly added or phrased poorly. Nothing surprising or nefarious that they didn't detail the reporting.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

And again, **even if** this guy turns out to be a paedophile hacker narco-terrorist money launderer, that would not change anything about how our legal system should work.

The way things were supposed to be - before 9/11 - gave law enforcement all powers necessary to effectively fight these "existential threats to western civilisation".

The widespread changes since then have only undermined **our** rights as citizens. In effect letting the terrorists win, and more and more every year, with every drone strike, every black site, every move toward supporting our client-state terrorists, we play into their hands.

If they failed to follow reporting rules, they certainly should have the money confiscated if they turn out to be money launderers or tax evaders. If you are going to commit crimes, don't get caught breaking minor rules (reminds me of the drug dealers who try to race from the cops when they were only going to be pulled over for a minor infraction and the cops would have had no reason to open the trunk but suddenly, they have plenty of reasonable justification).

The reporting rule was in place long before 9/11. A quick search found it has been in place at least back to 1970, so not a 9/11 issue.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Where is this "international zone"?

This the zone outside of customs and immigration. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_zone.

If there is no separation between international and domestic departing gates, the zone is deemed legally to begin at the gate.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

With a notice like this, it's very common to keep it simple and generic. It's basically a form letter that covers a wide variety of situations. There are often time limits for the officials to provide notice and this allows them to get them out quickly (the downside of strict reporting requirements). This is basically the equivalent of your lawyer telling you not to say anything because it can be used against you later. If they try to customize the notice with too much detail and there isn't time for the lawyers to thoroughly review it, it's easy to kill a case based on something mistakenly added or phrased poorly. Nothing surprising or nefarious that they didn't detail the reporting.

A form letter! That's a good one. This is a very serious legal document which states the basis of the action taken -- you have a legal right to know. To send out a "generic form letter" which does not specify the basis upon which your property has been seized would be a gross violation of your rights.

No, the basis of the seizure is stated vaguely because there is nothing to it but a presumption that the guy couldn't have been doing anything legal, to have so much cash on him. The standard procedure in many agencies -- and this is well documented -- is to take "large" amounts of cash and state these presumptions as the basis. "Large" might be just a couple of thousand, as in the case of one college student who got his wallet emptied out in a traffic stop in Nevada. "Must be drug money", was the basis for the seizure, without any shred of any other kind of evidence.

The key thing here is that these presumptions do not rise to the level of actual probable cause and would never be sufficient for any kind of search, arrest, or criminal charge. This is a fault in the procedure -- an unconstitutional one in my opinion.

In one case, a dashcam recorded a supervisor on the radio back at the station instructing an officer, who had found some cash on someone in a traffic stop, to just "take it, and put it down as drug money or something". Without knowing anything about the guy who was stopped! It's natural for this to happen since the law does not require anything more than this. When it is so effortless, and when the result of doing so is that your department gets extra funding, then it is entirely natural that the process is abused. Next thing of course is that there will be quotas and pressure on officers to bring in certain amounts -- and there are also documented cases of this.

What happened in the Kazazi case is absolutely obvious -- the reason for the seizure was the mere fact of the money's existence, and the fact that he was a scared foreigner who didn't speak English, and nothing else whatsoever. There was no shred of evidence, no charges filed, not even an investigation. What will happen next is that he will get his money back after suing them and that will be the end of the story. This particular guy is lucky that he attracted the attention of a crack pro bono lawyer from a top law firm, Baker & Hostetler (I interviewed with them myself when I was in law school), and got the Institute of Justice to take up his cause. How many other innocent victims just lose their property?

Until the law is changed, nothing will change about the practice, because CBP have lost nothing at all in the Kazazi case. For every one case like this, there are probably 10 others where the victim is too frightened to find a lawyer, or can't afford it, and simply walks away from his property. It's so easy because they don't have to have even probable cause, much less prove anything, unless the victim sues, and even in that case they only have to show a preponderance of the evidence. In the Kazazi case, CBP didn't even file the seizure motion! They didn't do anything at all! They just grabbed the cash and played the odds that Kazazi wouldn't do anything about it - a very efficient way to rake in cash. But agencies don't want to give up the power because, not only is it directly profitable to them, but there are cases where they "just know" that someone is a criminal, and this process allows them to kick him without doing the police work necessary to make an actual criminal case. It increases their power, and might increase their efficiency.

It's up to us to change it.

[Dockhead]

An interesting article about the incentives in civil asset forfeiture -- seminars given to police departments!


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/u...-to-seize.html