Illegal to carry lots of money??
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
^Don't have to tell me this, I work at a bank.
You'd probably (well, not YOU) be surprised at how many people don't know this.
Actually, exactly the opposite is true. You can conduct a transaction of $10,000+ and the IRS typically (unless you're suspicious in other ways) won't give it a second thought as long as you fill out the Currency Transaction Report (CTR). It's really only when people go out of their way to avoid filling out this document (which basically says, yes, I just made a cash transaction of more than $10,000) by making, say, two $8,000 transactions almost simultaneously, called "structuring," that the thing gets flagged and the IRS investigates. Fortunately for those of us who prosecute these cases, drug dealers tend not to twig onto this and continue to structure their transactions.
The currency reporting and anti-structuring statutes are designed to help identify money laundering transactions.
Yes, there are. There are also plenty of legitimate reasons to have scales on you. Perhaps you're a chef, or have one of those ones that weighs money.
The point is that having large amounts of cash and scales on you opens you up to suspicion.
Not conviction.
Not life in prison.
Suspicion. Because those items in your car are strongly associated with drug dealing. It doesn't mean you don't have an innocent explanation for it, and I strongly doubt the article's assertion that merely possessing those items was actively illegal. It just means that your activity is legitimately suspicious. You have no right, Constitutional or otherwise, to freedom from proportionate investigation of reasonable suspicion.
Oh, I don't know. You'll see some of them that look like they've got it together. Usually the younger ones who haven't been doing it long enough to manifest any of the telltale signs.Simple reason: In my neck of TN hell, large undocumented cash sums screams "meth dealer/pot dealer" to the cops".Just
Really? Even if you're dressed clean and have all of your teeth?
On a side note, you ever drive through Edmond? Those cops will pull you over for any old reason. The car I drive to work is about 12 years old, missing a couple hubcaps and has a few dents and dings. That's the only reason I can think of for the fact that they pull me over ALL the time just to ask me what I'm doing out so late and where I'm going. My car is not worthy of Edmond!
One day I went over to my parents' house(they live in Edmond)on my lunch break. A cop followed me all the way there, and when I came out 45 minutes later, he was still circling the block. He followed me all the way back to work.
Really? I did a semester at UCO (2007) and even went around town often with no hassles and I drive a faded, dirty 1997 Dodge Ram. I do remember when Nichols Hills was cracking down on pickups -- until irate homeowners complained that it was their trucks and not "the help's"Oh, I don't know. You'll see some of them that look like they've got it together. Usually the younger ones who haven't been doing it long enough to manifest any of the telltale signs.
On a side note, you ever drive through Edmond? Those cops will pull you over for any old reason. The car I drive to work is about 12 years old, missing a couple hubcaps and has a few dents and dings. That's the only reason I can think of for the fact that they pull me over ALL the time just to ask me what I'm doing out so late and where I'm going. My car is not worthy of Edmond!
One day I went over to my parents' house(they live in Edmond)on my lunch break. A cop followed me all the way there, and when I came out 45 minutes later, he was still circling the block. He followed me all the way back to work.
True, but then again-- and I know this isn't the norm-- I've had a couple of friends that got hauled in on a "drug paraphernalia" beef just cause they had a disposable Bic lighter in their jacket-- and yes they were of legal smoking age and no they didn't smoke pot just cigarettes.
Granted the chargers were dropped and the deputy said he made an "error" when the lawyers were called.
It still amazes me how many people continue to disbelieve that you can be held for suspicion of anything that it is reasonable to suspect you for based on purely circumstantial evidence. Money + scale (+ other undocumented evidence like pot odor, no job, really nice car, mouthy attitude, bloodshot eyes, etc.) = satisfactory suspicion. You can march up and down and declare with absolute certainty that this is a violation of someone's rights, but (while I may agree on principle) you'd still be wrong. It may be a violation of rights you wish you had, but the fact is, you don't. It doesn't serve to remain ignorant of this. If you intend to go out with your fancy digital scale that measures 1/8th of an ounce (and claim it is for food portion control), you ain't foolin' noone.
Where's the followup story? Did they find traces of keef? I bet you they did.
Where's the followup story? Did they find traces of keef? I bet you they did.
My wife cuts through Nichols Hills all the time, and it makes me nervous as hell when I'm with her, even though her car is decent. It's a 2003 Accord, but I'm not sure that's up to Nichols' Hills standards.Really? I did a semester at UCO (2007) and even went around town often with no hassles and I drive a faded, dirty 1997 Dodge Ram. I do remember when Nichols Hills was cracking down on pickups -- until irate homeowners complained that it was their trucks and not "the help's"Oh, I don't know. You'll see some of them that look like they've got it together. Usually the younger ones who haven't been doing it long enough to manifest any of the telltale signs.
On a side note, you ever drive through Edmond? Those cops will pull you over for any old reason. The car I drive to work is about 12 years old, missing a couple hubcaps and has a few dents and dings. That's the only reason I can think of for the fact that they pull me over ALL the time just to ask me what I'm doing out so late and where I'm going. My car is not worthy of Edmond!
One day I went over to my parents' house(they live in Edmond)on my lunch break. A cop followed me all the way there, and when I came out 45 minutes later, he was still circling the block. He followed me all the way back to work.
Some of the Edmond cops are alright, but there's some that will harass me on a regular basis for no good reason. Some of them follow me to my job and ask me what I'm doing there when I get out of the car.
Never had a problem with OKC cops. The Village is really strict, but at least they only pull you over for legitimate reasons.
Mmmm, sounds very similar to the UK's Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which was initially set up to allow confiscation/forfeiture of money sums in excess of £10,000 for investigation suspected of being obtained through unlawful conduct or intended for use in unlawful/criminal conduct. The law was recently amended to allow officers to seize any quantity of money they found on searching a person/car/premises which they believe to be £1000 or more as long as there was the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
It's not illegal to carry around large volumes of cash, but it does raise suspicion levels up somewhat...
Now, police officers are not allowed to count money outside of a police station so you find a wad of cash, it looks like £1000, more, or thereabouts and you have reasonable suspicion of criminal/unlawful activity, you sieze it, bag it, exhibit it and send it off to the Financial Investigation Unit for it to be counted. IF the money is £1000 or greater then officers can apply for a confiscation order from the local magistrates court to allow them to investigate any criminal suspicions further. They, however, only have 48 hours to put that application in front of a court from the moment the money has been seized (excluding bank holidays). Once an order has been created the Financial Investigation Unit will have 28 days to ascertain if the money is recoverable property or used in the course in connection with crime. IF the money turns out to be £999.99 then, unless you have further evidence to link it as evidence used in criminal proceedings (whereby you can retain it under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984), it goes back to the person it was initially seized from.
This has been an invaluable tool used by beat/street officers to actually hit the low-level street-dealers, drug peddlers right in the pocket. By denying them access to their cash we are hopefully deterring them from further activities whilst their cash is being investigated, and also sending a message out to those offenders that we CAN hit them where it hurts in a very dramatic and instant fashion. The volume of dealers who used to smirk at you as you found no drugs on them, rather simply a wad of cash and a packet of cigarettes have faced the tougher reality that the Home Office and the police will find ways around their dealing tactics.
The rules about this piece of legislation are pretty tight, so over here in the UK it's very very easy to take the money, and much hard to keep it. But the idea is to send a message to the criminals and give the Financial Investigation Unit a chance to get into the lives of drug dealers/robbers/fraudsters and make them account for their criminal lifestyle. After seizing the initial sum of cash the legislation allows officers to then seize goods, cars, TV's, properties if their investigation links them to being what we call Recoverable Property (property purchased with proceeds of crime). Given the UK courts (and the leglislation itself) finds it very difficult to pin Possession With Intent To Supply charges against drug offenders, it's a wonderful tool to actually punish the offenders by at the very minimum tying up their cash for weeks/months denying them access to either bulk-purchasing more drugs or funding their lifestyle.
I like it. In the case posted by the OP this is very likely what is happening, and if he has no criminal activities/ties relating to the cash then he'll (i'd imagine) get all of his money back. And from a Police Officers POV, if you are carrying around that volume of cash in a secreted part of your vehicle you are either one of two things... dumb as a post and if you're vehicle gets stolen don't expect any sympathy from me when I take your report... OR involved in something you shouldn't. In the end though, every officers grounds for reasonable suspicion are as different as the blemishes on their skin and THAT officer will have to justify his seizure. If he can't then let the subject sue him in civil court and get some compensation. I'm down with that too, because we're accountable people, and if your grounds aren't locked down then you've simply left yourself wide open.
If I found a large sum of cash in notes secreted in a car with a set of digital weigh scales (and not the kind used to weigh rice/flour in the kitchen) I'd seize the cash and let the FIU do it's thing. The person would not be arrested at that point (unless I found suspicion of other offences), but the cash would be under custody of the police for investigation, which would involve (if it was over £1000 and the formal confiscation order was given by the courts) the person being invited to the police station to account for the monies via a taped interview, under caution with a solicitor if they want. Still not under arrest, mind. Sadly if we have supiscion of a crime out on the street we can't investigate it there and then (question formally) so, by seizing the cash and investigating THAT we then get to question the person it was seized from in a formal setting. Best way to do it I feel.
But that's just me.
Hugo - lecture over
PS - CULTCROSS - I'm writing a "Copper Vs Analyst" PM back to you, I'm just taking my time to be fair and even
It's not illegal to carry around large volumes of cash, but it does raise suspicion levels up somewhat...
Now, police officers are not allowed to count money outside of a police station so you find a wad of cash, it looks like £1000, more, or thereabouts and you have reasonable suspicion of criminal/unlawful activity, you sieze it, bag it, exhibit it and send it off to the Financial Investigation Unit for it to be counted. IF the money is £1000 or greater then officers can apply for a confiscation order from the local magistrates court to allow them to investigate any criminal suspicions further. They, however, only have 48 hours to put that application in front of a court from the moment the money has been seized (excluding bank holidays). Once an order has been created the Financial Investigation Unit will have 28 days to ascertain if the money is recoverable property or used in the course in connection with crime. IF the money turns out to be £999.99 then, unless you have further evidence to link it as evidence used in criminal proceedings (whereby you can retain it under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984), it goes back to the person it was initially seized from.
This has been an invaluable tool used by beat/street officers to actually hit the low-level street-dealers, drug peddlers right in the pocket. By denying them access to their cash we are hopefully deterring them from further activities whilst their cash is being investigated, and also sending a message out to those offenders that we CAN hit them where it hurts in a very dramatic and instant fashion. The volume of dealers who used to smirk at you as you found no drugs on them, rather simply a wad of cash and a packet of cigarettes have faced the tougher reality that the Home Office and the police will find ways around their dealing tactics.
The rules about this piece of legislation are pretty tight, so over here in the UK it's very very easy to take the money, and much hard to keep it. But the idea is to send a message to the criminals and give the Financial Investigation Unit a chance to get into the lives of drug dealers/robbers/fraudsters and make them account for their criminal lifestyle. After seizing the initial sum of cash the legislation allows officers to then seize goods, cars, TV's, properties if their investigation links them to being what we call Recoverable Property (property purchased with proceeds of crime). Given the UK courts (and the leglislation itself) finds it very difficult to pin Possession With Intent To Supply charges against drug offenders, it's a wonderful tool to actually punish the offenders by at the very minimum tying up their cash for weeks/months denying them access to either bulk-purchasing more drugs or funding their lifestyle.
I like it. In the case posted by the OP this is very likely what is happening, and if he has no criminal activities/ties relating to the cash then he'll (i'd imagine) get all of his money back. And from a Police Officers POV, if you are carrying around that volume of cash in a secreted part of your vehicle you are either one of two things... dumb as a post and if you're vehicle gets stolen don't expect any sympathy from me when I take your report... OR involved in something you shouldn't. In the end though, every officers grounds for reasonable suspicion are as different as the blemishes on their skin and THAT officer will have to justify his seizure. If he can't then let the subject sue him in civil court and get some compensation. I'm down with that too, because we're accountable people, and if your grounds aren't locked down then you've simply left yourself wide open.
If I found a large sum of cash in notes secreted in a car with a set of digital weigh scales (and not the kind used to weigh rice/flour in the kitchen) I'd seize the cash and let the FIU do it's thing. The person would not be arrested at that point (unless I found suspicion of other offences), but the cash would be under custody of the police for investigation, which would involve (if it was over £1000 and the formal confiscation order was given by the courts) the person being invited to the police station to account for the monies via a taped interview, under caution with a solicitor if they want. Still not under arrest, mind. Sadly if we have supiscion of a crime out on the street we can't investigate it there and then (question formally) so, by seizing the cash and investigating THAT we then get to question the person it was seized from in a formal setting. Best way to do it I feel.
But that's just me.
Hugo - lecture over
PS - CULTCROSS - I'm writing a "Copper Vs Analyst" PM back to you, I'm just taking my time to be fair and even
Last edited:
Similar threads
