Outrageous! Farmers getting trapped by Feds for "money laundering"

[carolkoh]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/July/Felon-Farmers-Law-Criminalizes-Legitimate-Businesses/

Basically, small farmers are getting socked for "money laundering." Banks have to report cash deposits of over $10K - in compliance with a federal law designed to go after drug dealers, go after terrorists and gun-runners who would take proceeds from illegal sales and launder them through the banks.

Criminals started salting their ill-gotten cash around in various banks in amounts of less than $10,000. In turn, the feds made that a crime, too, called "structuring" deposits.

Unfortunately, many innocent people also deposit large amounts of completely legal cash in more than one account, like checking, savings, a college fund, or retirement account. If it adds up to $10K or more, guess what? You're in violation of the law.

Anyway - read the article. I'm not going to debate what's right / wrong / legitimate or otherwise... but merely say... I'm flabbergasted.

 

[treitz3]

Hello, Carlolyn. I'll keep my response short and sweet. That is infuriating. If you could see me now, you would witness steam billowing out of both ears.

Tom

 

[mep]

Last man standing that is not in jail wins.

 

[NorthStar]

---Is this related to HSBC banks' latest scandal regarding money laundering with the Mexican drug cartels and other unethical (fraud) actions across the world? ...And which prompted the resignation of the bank chief of HSBC and some of his bank affiliates. ...Still under criminal investigation by the US federal law establishment.

It's BIG!
And it was supposed to be one of the biggest and most trusted banking institution in the world!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This happens periodically and is inevitable in a complex, modern society governed by rule of law. A law is passed that is designed to impede some illegitimate activity that inadvertetly makes a perfectly legitimate one illegal. Some Barney Fife of an authority actually tries to enforce the law inappropriately. The press gets ahold of the story and runs with it because...oh I don't know, because they created a 24-hour news cycle for themselves and they can't handle the pressure? And we...well, a few of us...get outraged.

Save me the trouble of reading this vacuum bag of news -- Has anyone been sent to prison for funding their kid's college education? No, I didn't think so. Tempest in a teapot. Our outrage is the only thing here that's outrageous. And the law will be changed.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-You must not have read the story correctly. The government confiscated large sums of money from the two people in this story and the government is not giving it back. Talk to the two farmers and see if they feel this is a "tempest in a teapot." I hardly think so myself.

 

[treitz3]

Yes, one farmer lost $45,00.00 after having $90,000.00 seized. Another farmer [the one in the video] had $60,000.00 seized and was only given $30,000.00 back after settling. A simple does of common sense by the feds would have prevented this from happening in the first place. Neither farmer should have had anything confiscated or seized to begin with. They simply decided to deposit the hard earned money that they earned fair and square and as a consequence, they were threatened to be put into jail and both of them lost 1/2 of the amount originally seized. According to the video, these are not the only two occurrences and it seems to be a widespread issue.

Tom

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-You must not have read the story correctly. The government confiscated large sums of money from the two people in this story and the government is not giving it back. Talk to the two farmers and see if they feel this is a "tempest in a teapot." I hardly think so myself.

I didn't read the story at all. Did you notice the source? They could be right, but that would be the exception, not the rule. I'll read the story when I see it in a legitimate media source. I don't read right-wing anti-X propaganda. FWIW I don't read it from the left either. There are plenty of sources out there, even biased ones, that can be relied on to print something like the truth. This is not one of them.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

That's terrible. I worked on the Philippine Anti-Money Laundering Act that was to make our laws conform to FATF requirements. Back in 2002, yes the 10k flag was there but the accounts could only be frozen not seized. Seizure can only happen if you were charged and convicted. This figure actually goes waaaaay back to RICO days, late sixties, if you noticed it is also the figure pegged by customs with regards to cash being brought in or out of the USA. The rough equivalent in our currency and others serves as the flag amount. Non-compliance leads to sanctions.

I read in the papers (I retired from the House of Representatives in 2010 having served my three allowable terms) that we're being put on the FATF blacklist again, no wonder, they changed the rules again!

 

[treitz3]

I didn't read the story at all. Did you notice the source? They could be right, but that would be the exception, not the rule. I'll read the story when I see it in a legitimate media source. I don't read right-wing anti-X propaganda. FWIW I don't read it from the left either. There are plenty of sources out there, even biased ones, that can be relied on to print something like the truth. This is not one of them.

You don't trust the Christian Broadcast Network for the most basic of reporting?

 

[NorthStar]

I didn't read the story at all. Did you notice the source? They could be right, but that would be the exception, not the rule. I'll read the story when I see it in a legitimate media source. I don't read right-wing anti-X propaganda. FWIW I don't read it from the left either. There are plenty of sources out there, even biased ones, that can be relied on to print something like the truth. This is not one of them.

Tim

-----Tim, 'bout Scientology? :b

 

[Gregadd]

Generally speaking depositing over $10k was not a crime. It was just a red flag to officials. As far as I know it was not grounds for forfieture. As far as I know they still have to prove the money is ill gotten gains. Often when the government seizes money they shift the burden to the owner to prove the origin. Even worse the local officials are entitled to a share of money seized. This gives them incentive to be aggressive. Never give in.

I suggest you contact my former colleague Brenda Grantland, Esq. via her website F.E.A.R. She is a pioneer in the field of forfeiture based on criminal activity.

 

[cjfrbw]

I would have to think as well that there is more to the story than innocent farmers having money seized for no reason.

They were probably targeted for a pattern which emerged over time rather than an isolated case, because they came under observation and suspicion for repeated acts. The farmers probably forfeit the money because they don't want to justify the source of the money or incriminate themselves by revealing further information. Whether that is justified leverage on the part of the authorities is hard for a lay person to answer without knowing the whole picture.

Polemics based on incomplete information.

 

[treitz3]

Perhaps.

Tom

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You don't trust the Christian Broadcast Network for the most basic of reporting?

No, I don't. They are a political organization with a very specific agenda, headed by a man I'm not sure is even capable of knowing truth from the voices in his head. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could carry their money, and I assure you, I couldn't even lift it.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

I would have to think as well that there is more to the story than innocent farmers having money seized for no reason.

They were probably targeted for a pattern which emerged over time rather than an isolated case, because they came under observation and suspicion for repeated acts. The farmers probably forfeit the money because they don't want to justify the source of the money or incriminate themselves by revealing further information. Whether that is justified leverage on the part of the authorities is hard for a lay person to answer without knowing the whole picture.

Polemics based on incomplete information.

Good point.

* Everybody is bad a bit (some almost not at all, and others never, like me);
but all the big banks are all very bad! ...As for the rest; we all know the scoop. :b

 

[rblnr]

I'm with Tim. I don't trust the source, but even if it's true, it's a tiny blip that's inevitable in the complex world we live in and will very, very likely be corrected. So the government is targeting a small farmers 30 grand? 'Really', in the sarcastic way my 7yo would say it.

Outrage about this vs. all the massive scale systemic economic crime and corruption that's shredding our country? I don't get it.

 

[Gregadd]

Federal law makes it
a crime to break up transactions into smaller amounts
for the purpose of evading the CTR reporting requirement and this may lead to a required disclosure from
the financial institution to the government. Structuring transactions to prevent a CTR from being reported can result in imprisonment for not more than five
years and/or a fine of up to $250,000. If structuring involves more than $100,000 in a twelve month period
or is performed while violating another law of the
United States, the penalty is doubled

Edit
It would seem to require intent. Cursory research suggests splitting cash deposits can create a prima facie case of structuring. See.31 U.S.C. §5324, This a vestige of the Patriot and Bank Secrecy Act. A misnomer. Legislative intent and case law will determine the meaning.

 

[treitz3]

So the government is targeting a small farmers 30 grand? 'Really', in the sarcastic way my 7yo would say it.

You find this to be acceptable? Did you know that the entire account of each farmer was frozen during this "seizure" [for an undisclosed duration of time] and that many farm workers may have had to be laid off as a result? What about the loss of production and loss of unattended crops/profits during this time? Many questions and scenarios I could come up with but I will stop here. There are many farms out there that could go bankrupt with just one seizure which IMO should not have happened to begin with.

Tom

 

[Gregadd]

Just about any retail merchant could run afoul of this law. Exemptions are available.


Consult your attorney for advice