Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

Paxton25

Forgiven
Aug 27, 2010
1,211
60
✟17,837.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/u...unts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=0
 

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,636
6,398
✟295,051.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Seizing/freezing of accounts suspected of money laundering isn't particularly new, it's been around since the RICO laws meant to target organized crime.

The crime these people are suspected of is "structuring" which is depositing a bunch of times just under the reporting limit of 10,000 so the bank doesn't report it. It is in and of itself illegal.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
28,133
19,578
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟493,334.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Edit (After really reading the article): Oh this is just precious. First 'cash seizures', now this. Good thing they have you distracted, right? Your whole government is scamming you like a giant con artist, with the banks as their willing accomplice or, at the least, forbidden by law to stop them. And you keep voting for them. :D

Why is it again that you have all those guns for? Something about defending yourself from a repressive goverment? Too bad you'd have to get off the couch and turn of the tv set, right?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,028
2,423
✟459,470.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And she can sue for wrongful seizure of assets if she can prove no reasonable suspicion warranted seizure of her assets.

Lawyer up.

Which would cost more than the $30,000 account balance to pay for lawyers, etc to fight this.

Sadly, it seems to go against our principals of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Now if she was told what she was being charged with it might be easier to fight. Yet, there is no charges.

I'm all for going after the bad guys! Yet, once you find a bottleneck in your system? You fix it! They system is so big that they don't, and society is harmed as a consequence. When called on it? The government pretty much says HUSH you little people, and go on with your day!

Generally, you have a register tape that shows your sales. You have invoices that proves your costs. It should be easy to show she isn't using her funds for what they claim is there, and yet won't tell her what they think is there.

It's mind boggling to me. At least when you are charged for murder you know WHOM you are accused of murdering! This type of thing just defy's logic. How do you even go about defending yourself when you don't know what you are accused of doing.

Sounds like the government is counting on you NOT lawyering up, because it will cost you more to do so. Yikers!
 
Upvote 0

ThisBrotherOfHis

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2013
1,444
115
On the cusp of the Border War
✟2,181.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And she can sue for wrongful seizure of assets if she can prove no reasonable suspicion warranted seizure of her assets.
She doesn't have to prove anything. The IRS is in violation of due process rights by seizing assets without a hearing. The "law" that authorizes this is unconstitutional.
 
Upvote 0

psalms 91

Legend
Dec 27, 2004
71,895
13,537
✟127,276.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Doesnt matter, the laws are now written so tat the government can take anything they wish. It is not limited to money, they can also seize your food under the anti hoarding act, you can be arrested and held without a lawyer or charges under the patriot act and homeland security. In this country anymore it is guilty if the government charges you. There are very few acquittals anymore and then only if you have the money to pay a very good lawyer. The illusion of freedom in the USA is just that, an illusion
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,429.00
Faith
Atheist
She doesn't have to prove anything. The IRS is in violation of due process rights by seizing assets without a hearing. The "law" that authorizes this is unconstitutional.

Under the law, assets are guilty until proven innocent. It shouldn't be this way, and it's certainly not representative of justice, but that's how the law is written.

This goes hand in hand with cash seizures being done by police in the field. The government can take your property, and you have to fight (at a heavy cost) to get it back, regardless of innocence.
 
Upvote 0

ThisBrotherOfHis

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2013
1,444
115
On the cusp of the Border War
✟2,181.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Under the law, assets are guilty until proven innocent. It shouldn't be this way, and it's certainly not representative of justice, but that's how the law is written.

This goes hand in hand with cash seizures being done by police in the field. The government can take your property, and you have to fight (at a heavy cost) to get it back, regardless of innocence.
Exactly. None of these laws should have been allowed to stand as long as they have.
 
Upvote 0

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
58
Ohio
Visit site
✟35,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
She doesn't have to prove anything. The IRS is in violation of due process rights by seizing assets without a hearing. The "law" that authorizes this is unconstitutional.
Someone has to pay the fees and lawyer until the case is won.
The government can delay for long periods, knowing that a person with limited income can not keep paying services.

They need a lawyer that will work free until they win then collect their fees from the settlement.

Mexican resturant, so probably minorities, so probably many lawyers would be available. Not certain caucasion middle income business would be able to fight this.

Government should not be able to seize anything without a crime being charged, or within a reasonable amount of time to establish the crime after seizure. I'd say 10 days max. After that time, interest should accrue, the same as if a person owed taxes. Maybe even the IRS fines should be included until the assets are returned.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

psalms 91

Legend
Dec 27, 2004
71,895
13,537
✟127,276.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Someone has to pay the fees and lawyer until the case is won.
The government can delay for long periods, knowing that a person with limited income can not keep paying services.

They need a lawyer that will work free until they win then collect their fees from the settlement.

Mexican resturant, so probably minorities, so probably many lawyers would be available. Not certain caucasion middle income business would be able to fight this.

Government should not be able to seize anything without a crime being charged, or within a reasonable amount of time to establish the crime after seizure. I'd say 10 days max. After that time, interest should accrue, the same as if a person owed taxes. Maybe even the IRS fines should be included until the assets are returned.
Freeze it yes, seize it no, not until proven guilty or has that concept also been abandoned (stupid question as it was abandoned uyears ago)
 
Upvote 0