-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Pay Your Credit Card Bill And Be Suspected For A Terrorist
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
techs
Lifer
The 10k transaction limit has been around for many years. In this particular case the person paid 6,522 so the 10k limit doesn't apply.
And the 10k limit merely required a bank to fill out a form and report it to the feds who basically just store it on a computer and access it if they have reason to. The transaction itself does not start an investigation, unless you make a lot of them.
What happened to this guy is completely different.
And the sum involved, 6,522 is really very small. And it was one time thing.
In fact I just bought a car for 7,000. And it was a toss up whether I was going to take out the money in cash and go to the guys bank with him to pay it or get a money order.
I got a money order.
Or who knows if I would have been flagged by DHS?
I would like to point out DHS had no problem finding this guys 6,522 payment but doesn't seem all that interested in politicians, like the Duke, who were receiving and continue to receive large amounts of money.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
I dunno which school you went to. I was taught that 6552 is less than 10K.
His payment was under the 10K limit. So why was his payment picked up for scrutiny?
Good try, though!
DotheDamnTHing
Platinum Member
wow where are the bush apologists?
Yeah, that's another stupid law. All it does it make it harder for the drug dealers to do business, but as far as I'm aware you can go down and write a check for a new car or even charge it to your credit card. You can pay cash too I think? It's just that to get $10,000 or greater in a one lump sum cash payment you have to fill out a form. Oh, you can't get $1000 bills anymore either, you have to settle for $100's.
And yes, a lot of people weren't happy about that law, but it wasn't that big of a deal. They could see how it would hamper the drug dealers and were willing to put up with it. On the other hand, being investigated for paying off a $6000 credit card bill is just beyond beleif AFAIC. How is that helping to find terrorists?? I see it as nothing but an invasion of my privacy.
1prophet
Diamond Member
If you are doing nothing wrong, oh wait!:Q
The average person might say, "Well, the government would never come after anyone who was totally innocent." But that's not true ? he misses the point. The IRS admits that 85% of the people accused of "structuring" committed no other crime than seeking to protect their privacy. The courts have upheld numerous criminal structuring convictions for violations that concealed no criminal activity. If the government wins the conviction, the judge must sentence the criminal "to a mandatory prison sentence."
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING WRONG
There was somebody who fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won but how many can or will make such a sacrifice especially in this age of high price lawyers and the pressure to plea bargain?
Editor's note: According to an article in the January 12, 1994, issue of the Denver Post , in Ratzlaf vs. U.S. (decided January 11, 1994), the U.S. Supreme Court, by a five to four vote, held that the law requires proof that the staggered cash transactions were done "willfully" to defy the law. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said prosecutors must show that the person knew of the reporting requirement and specifically intended to disobey the law.
The average person might say, "Well, the government would never come after anyone who was totally innocent." But that's not true ? he misses the point. The IRS admits that 85% of the people accused of "structuring" committed no other crime than seeking to protect their privacy. The courts have upheld numerous criminal structuring convictions for violations that concealed no criminal activity. If the government wins the conviction, the judge must sentence the criminal "to a mandatory prison sentence."
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING WRONG
There was somebody who fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won but how many can or will make such a sacrifice especially in this age of high price lawyers and the pressure to plea bargain?
Editor's note: According to an article in the January 12, 1994, issue of the Denver Post , in Ratzlaf vs. U.S. (decided January 11, 1994), the U.S. Supreme Court, by a five to four vote, held that the law requires proof that the staggered cash transactions were done "willfully" to defy the law. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said prosecutors must show that the person knew of the reporting requirement and specifically intended to disobey the law.
imported_Condor
Diamond Member
I was trying to be nice to them. A mod indicated that I should a few weeks back.
imported_Condor
Diamond Member
Only a difference of scale.
imported_Condor
Diamond Member
Unlike you libs, we think on our own. We were mostly against him in the Dubai ports issue and are still against him in that. We can't understand how he can be so smart in everything else and so dumbchit in that one. No one but Americans should run our ports! Not even the Brits! Let the Arabs build a car pland in the town next door and I'm fine with that, but do not let them or any other nation have anything to do with our security. There, weasel that!
imported_Condor
Diamond Member
Once again, same science - different scale. Whats a few dollars less?
You can't see the difference between getting cash in hand and paying a bill with a check?????
Apples to Oranges. I can see how limiting easy access to large amounts of cash would help in the war on drugs. I fail to see how this incident helps in any way on the war on terror?? All it is is an invasion of privacy IMO.
So, tell me, how do you think this helps the war on terror?
I am curious if somebody can provide proof of this or was somebody at JCPenney pulling this guys chain?
If we are running around spending resources chasing 6500 dollar credit card payments this needs to be looked into and stopped. I am sure there are more than enough people and business's on a daily basis who pay large sums of cash to a CC company.
If we are running around spending resources chasing 6500 dollar credit card payments this needs to be looked into and stopped. I am sure there are more than enough people and business's on a daily basis who pay large sums of cash to a CC company.
What reason do I have to trust China anymore than the UAE? Their wonderful embrace of western values like shooting protesters? Rolling over students with tanks? Forcing thousands out of their homes for the sake of "progress?"
The fact is that the group leasing the ports (they aren't buying them) doesn't really matter. They handle logistics. We handle the security and we own the ports.
Bowfinger
Lifer
Hardly. One is a passive (no approval required) report (after the fact, does not impede the transaction) of a large cash (i.e., untraceable) transaction. The other requires active government consent for a perfectly legal and routine action, impedes the transaction, presumably at some additional interest expense to the consumer, and is required even though payment via check leaves an audit trail. One might question the legitimacy of the $10K cash reporting requirement, especially if one wished to divert the thread and deflect criticism of BushCo's inept governance, but comparing it to the OP's example is nonsense.
1prophet
Diamond Member
From the original posters article.
They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.
Are there secret laws in place as bolded above and how do you defend yourself against that which you are not allowed to know?
They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.
Are there secret laws in place as bolded above and how do you defend yourself against that which you are not allowed to know?
imported_Condor
Diamond Member
Just pointing out to the Bush bashing corps here that this sort of stuff is old news and they never whined about it before this administration. Bias? Agenda? Yep - both!
it'll go good with your kool-aid.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
