DEA steals man's savings

[Chris0nllyn]

All the money – $16,000 in cash – that Joseph Rivers said he had saved and relatives had given him to launch his dream in Hollywood is gone, seized during his trip out West not by thieves but by Drug Enforcement Administration agents during a stop at the Amtrak train station in Albuquerque.

Rivers, 22, wasn’t detained and has not been charged with any crime since his money was taken last month.

That doesn’t matter. Under a federal law enforcement tool called civil asset forfeiture, he need never be arrested or convicted of a crime for the government to take away his cash, cars or property – and keep it.

Agencies like the DEA can confiscate money or property if they have a hunch, a suspicion, a notion that maybe, possibly, perhaps the items are connected with narcotics. Or something else illegal.

Sean Waite, the agent in charge for the DEA in Albuquerque, said he could not comment on the Rivers case because it is ongoing. He disputed allegations that Rivers was targeted because of his race.

Waite said that in general DEA agents look for “indicators” such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash, if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity, if the person’s story has inconsistencies or if the large sums of money found could have been transported by more conventional means.

“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

DEA agents may choose to ask the person whether his or her possessions can be searched in what is called a “consensual encounter.” If the subject refuses, the bags – but not the person – can be held until a search warrant is obtained, he said.

Waite said that he could not provide exact figures on how often seizures occur in Albuquerque but that last week the DEA had five “consensual encounters” that resulted in seizures.

http://www.abqjournal.com/580107/news/dea-agents-seize-16000-from-aspiring-music-video-producer.html

War on drugs. A beacon of governmental success.

 

[tommyjo]

So you see nothing suspicious about this story and nothing suspicious about the young man?

None of the more inflammatory accusations are confirmed...the reporter played the race card and offered zero support...no train employees were interviewed...not a single witness was produced.

The young man in question...traveling with $16,000 in cash because

he has had problems in the past with taking out large sums of money from out-of-state banks.

. Bull. He is traveling to a new place of residence and he takes all his money with him in cash?? Malarkey.

So it is the author's assertion, your assertion and Mr. River's assertion that there are no branches of any national money center banks near his hometown of Romulus MI? No Bank of America? No Citgroup? No Wells Fargo? No PNC? No Suntrust? (You know, banks that have branches across the country?)

It is also the assertion that Mr. Rivers, could not go to his new hometown and open a new bank account with a check from his old bank account? Really?

In 2015, you believe that?

 

[Gilligan]

So you see nothing suspicious about this story and nothing suspicious about the young man?

None of the more inflammatory accusations are confirmed...the reporter played the race card and offered zero support...no train employees were interviewed...not a single witness was produced.

The young man in question...traveling with $16,000 in cash because . Bull. He is traveling to a new place of residence and he takes all his money with him in cash?? Malarkey.

So it is the author's assertion, your assertion and Mr. River's assertion that there are no branches of any national money center banks near his hometown of Romulus MI? No Bank of America? No Citgroup? No Wells Fargo? No PNC? No Suntrust? (You know, banks that have branches across the country?)

It is also the assertion that Mr. Rivers, could not go to his new hometown and open a new bank account with a check from his old bank account? Really?

In 2015, you believe that?

So it is your considered contention that anyone who chooses to keep their money in cash and move it as cash cannot complain if the government decides to arbitrarily take if from them? You didn't stop and think about that very much, did you?

And you are obviously very ill informed about the subject (no surprise there) ...which has been identified as a problem nationwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

 

[This_person]

So you see nothing suspicious about this story and nothing suspicious about the young man?

None of the more inflammatory accusations are confirmed...the reporter played the race card and offered zero support...no train employees were interviewed...not a single witness was produced.

The young man in question...traveling with $16,000 in cash because . Bull. He is traveling to a new place of residence and he takes all his money with him in cash?? Malarkey.

So it is the author's assertion, your assertion and Mr. River's assertion that there are no branches of any national money center banks near his hometown of Romulus MI? No Bank of America? No Citgroup? No Wells Fargo? No PNC? No Suntrust? (You know, banks that have branches across the country?)

It is also the assertion that Mr. Rivers, could not go to his new hometown and open a new bank account with a check from his old bank account? Really?

In 2015, you believe that?

Is "suspicious" more important than this?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can easily find his story "suspicious". Not sure why that trumps the constitution.

I know you won't answer, because you're a drive-by kind of poster, who must believe that even when her point is refuted she has proven it because everyone is too stupid to see what she sees, but...I'd be very interested to read your answer anyway.

 

[Hijinx]

What this is, is guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

They take your money and you have to prove it is yours.
They never admit or give evidence because the case is always ongoing.
Ongoing forever.

It's legal theft

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So you see nothing suspicious about this story and nothing suspicious about the young man?

None of the more inflammatory accusations are confirmed...the reporter played the race card and offered zero support...no train employees were interviewed...not a single witness was produced.

The young man in question...traveling with $16,000 in cash because . Bull. He is traveling to a new place of residence and he takes all his money with him in cash?? Malarkey.

So it is the author's assertion, your assertion and Mr. River's assertion that there are no branches of any national money center banks near his hometown of Romulus MI? No Bank of America? No Citgroup? No Wells Fargo? No PNC? No Suntrust? (You know, banks that have branches across the country?)

It is also the assertion that Mr. Rivers, could not go to his new hometown and open a new bank account with a check from his old bank account? Really?

In 2015, you believe that?

Who gives a damn? If someone in this country doesn't want to put their money in a bank, they shouldn't have to, and it sure as hell shouldn't be "suspicious", or PC to seize one's money and force THEM to explain how they came bout the money.

There's also been stories of folks having their winnings seized after leaving Vegas, so this isn't something new.

 

[kwillia]

Who gives a damn? If someone in this country doesn't want to put their money in a bank, they shouldn't have to, and it sure as hell shouldn't be "suspicious", or PC to seize one's money and force THEM to explain how they came bout the money.

There's also been stories of folks having their winnings seized after leaving Vegas, so this isn't something new.

The feds also steal money from the accounts of small businesses who regularly deposit cash in amounts "just under" the limit which requires the bank to do paperwork. Even when there ends up being no evidence of money laundering the government keeps it. It happens more often than most folks realize. It's wrong. It's illegal. It's ignored. :/

 

[PeoplesElbow]

$16K while not chump change is not that much money to be suspicious over. My grandfather easily kept that much money in his safe.

 

[digitallest]

$16K while not chump change is not that much money to be suspicious over. My grandfather easily kept that much money in his safe.

I think people have to obtain a waiver now for cash transactions larger than 10k usd. If I remember correctly, which is not always, but somewhere between often and occasionally, we are not allowed to keep ten thousand dollars or more on our person, or in our place of residence, for more than a particular amount amount of time, and you are supposed to obtain a waiver or something paper-work related, showing that this money is legitimately your money, and you are holding it for a purpose deemed acceptable.

im not sure i remember correctly. I know i have heard, you have to have a good reason for using cash, instead of a bank, for large transactions, but I'm fuzzy on details. Sounds like they are slowly herding us toward a cashless, bank dependent society, where anonymously purchading slim jims ad a pack of cigarettes will sound suspicious to the self subverting herds.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

I think people have to obtain a waiver now for cash transactions larger than 10k usd.

Is that on the Federal level or State; specifically MD; level?

If I remember correctly, which is not always, but somewhere between often and occasionally, we are not allowed to keep ten thousand dollars or more on our person, or in our place of residence, for more than a particular amount of time, and you are supposed to obtain a waiver or something paper-work related, showing that this money is legitimately your money, and you are holding it for a purpose deemed acceptable.

Same question.

im not sure i remember correctly. I know i have heard, you have to have a good reason for using cash, instead of a bank, for large transactions, but I'm fuzzy on details. Sounds like they are slowly herding us toward a cashless, bank dependent society, where anonymously purchading slim jims ad a pack of cigarettes will sound suspicious to the self subverting herds.

Why is it any of the State's or the Fed's business for that matter, if I want to keep my money in a mattress or in a safe in my house?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The feds also steal money from the accounts of small businesses who regularly deposit cash in amounts "just under" the limit which requires the bank to do paperwork. Even when there ends up being no evidence of money laundering the government keeps it. It happens more often than most folks realize. It's wrong. It's illegal. It's ignored. :/

 

[Hijinx]

Theft. There is no other word for it.

 

[digitallest]

Is that on the Federal level or State; specifically MD; level?



Why is it any of the State's or the Fed's business for that matter, if I want to keep my money in a mattress or in a safe in my house?

exactly what I was thinking.

truth is, I am not sure where the rule I am referring to came from, I know I have believed it to be the case for years. Having brought it in to the discussion, I will go poke up more information.

This is something you guys might have to get accustomed to, if we are gonna hang out. I have a left frontal lobe brain injury from a car wreck (I was not at fault) sometimes I transpose words, I forget common words, which drives me crazy. And I will remember part of something, but not all of it, or a source, I repeat myself a lot, because I instantly forget most of what I say...

.anyhow, it is what it is. it is not painful, and I am lucky to be alive, but I also can't say if I encountered this rule at a bank, on facebook, or in a movie.

I do, however, have it in my head that cash transactions of ten grand or more are discouraged pretty vigorously, and holding more than ten grand on your person or in your home can get you in trouble. If it turns out I am incorrect in my belief, I will feel like a dumbass, and laugh, but it also won't be the first time I carried a mistaken idea around as the truth, in recent years.

I hope this is not true, I will go see what the internet says about this, and try to remember what I find long enough to bring it back here for discussion.

I am stridently opposed to the government making it easier for its various branches to shake down the people.

 

[Gilligan]

I do, however, have it in my head that cash transactions of ten grand or more are discouraged pretty vigorously, and holding more than ten grand on your person or in your home can get you in trouble. .

That is mostly incorrect. Banks have been required for quite a long time (since the late 80s maybe?) to make a currency transaction report to a Fed entity for any/every cash transaction of 10K$ or more. That's all...they simply have to issue a CTR. That leaves a permanent "paper trail" that the gummint can use to prosecute you at some point if it turns out that cash was gotten illegally. That went in to effect as part of the big kickoff of the "war on drugs".

 

[glhs837]

Gilligan is correct, however, I can easily see where small banks might ask regular customers with large deposits to try and keep them under the limit to reduce the paperwork burden.

"Hey, Bob, we noticed you're dropping 10-12K 4 days out of 7, and 5-8K the other 3 days. What say you hold some over from the days over 10K to those lighter days, would really help us out in the reporting department"

As for the holding 10K, entering the country with cash or "instruments" totaling over 10K triggers a paperwork drill.

 

[Hijinx]

exactly what I was thinking.

truth is, I am not sure where the rule I am referring to came from, I know I have believed it to be the case for years. Having brought it in to the discussion, I will go poke up more information.

This is something you guys might have to get accustomed to, if we are gonna hang out. I have a left frontal lobe brain injury from a car wreck (I was not at fault) sometimes I transpose words, I forget common words, which drives me crazy. And I will remember part of something, but not all of it, or a source, I repeat myself a lot, because I instantly forget most of what I say...

.anyhow, it is what it is. it is not painful, and I am lucky to be alive, but I also can't say if I encountered this rule at a bank, on facebook, or in a movie.

I do, however, have it in my head that cash transactions of ten grand or more are discouraged pretty vigorously, and holding more than ten grand on your person or in your home can get you in trouble. If it turns out I am incorrect in my belief, I will feel like a dumbass, and laugh, but it also won't be the first time I carried a mistaken idea around as the truth, in recent years.

I hope this is not true, I will go see what the internet says about this, and try to remember what I find long enough to bring it back here for discussion.

I am stridently opposed to the government making it easier for its various branches to shake down the people.

I think it is pretty much up to the Government to take whatever you have whenever they want to.
Your property by eminent domain or just if they want it, your money if they decide you are carrying too much on your vacation, or even you bank account if this story is true. Give them a hassle like at Ruby Ridge and they will take your life along with it.

It is probably safer under your bed or in a jar or any where the fads cannot find it.

 

[Ken King]

Gilligan is correct, however, I can easily see where small banks might ask regular customers with large deposits to try and keep them under the limit to reduce the paperwork burden.

"Hey, Bob, we noticed you're dropping 10-12K 4 days out of 7, and 5-8K the other 3 days. What say you hold some over from the days over 10K to those lighter days, would really help us out in the reporting department"

As for the holding 10K, entering the country with cash or "instruments" totaling over 10K triggers a paperwork drill.

That is called "structuring" and will generate a Suspicious Activity Report to be filed by the bank. So the question is, do you want to file a CTR doing it by the rules or have the bank file a SAR and possibly get the account seized?

 

[digitallest]

That is mostly incorrect. Banks have been required for quite a long time (since the late 80s maybe?) to make a currency transaction report to a Fed entity for any/every cash transaction of 10K$ or more. That's all...they simply have to issue a CTR. That leaves a permanent "paper trail" that the gummint can use to prosecute you at some point if it turns out that cash was gotten illegally. That went in to effect as part of the big kickoff of the "war on drugs".

Aha. Thank you for looking it up. The whole federal government is so far out of hand at this point, it will take a major event to correct the course of our nations leadership.

 

[glhs837]

That is called "structuring" and will generate a Suspicious Activity Report to be filed by the bank. So the question is, do you want to file a CTR doing it by the rules or have the bank file a SAR and possibly get the account seized?

But if the bank asks you to do it, will they file a report?

 

[Ken King]

But if the bank asks you to do it, will they file a report?

I doubt that you would find a reputable bank that would even broach the topic with you. Do you have specific experience where a bank has done such a thing?