Slashdot Mirror
Law Lets IRS Seize Accounts On Suspicion, No Crime Required
schwit1 writes: The IRS admits to seizing hundreds of thousands of dollars of private assets, without any proof of illegal activity, merely because there is a law that lets them do it. From the article: "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 and settle the case for a portion of their money.
'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. 'They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.'" The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."
'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. 'They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.'" The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."
The revolution already happened - it's called Bitcoin.
I've spent the last year bank-free.
I live in the US, but work for a Swiss software company and get paid the CHF equivalent of $160k/year.
They pay me in Bitcoin.
I have no bank account.
Everything I need to buy I either pay for directly in Bitcoin, or in cash.
When I need cash, I use LocalBitcoins to find somebody who wants to trade.
The "massive bureaucracy with its bloated laws and indifferent employees" can fuck off. They can point their guns at secp256k1 all they want but it won't do them any good.
I just have to laugh at people who still care about or participate in politics - it's a complete waste of time. Within a few years Bitcoin has accomplished the change which many decades of voting have failed to provide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)
The US government never owned the entire world in the first place.
That attitude is the single biggest reason there are terrorists.
The reason why Islamic terrorists have been attacking India for decades is "because USA"?
To be fair, terrorism was around before the US was a major player in world affairs. It's also been aimed at more governments than just the US: the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the French Monarchy (the Jacobians were arguably a terrorist group), West Germany, etc.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It's a Fifth Amendment issue, but I think it's more to do with the bolded text.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Taking from people with no proof of a crime, is unconstitutional.
I agree with you 100%, but the history of civil asset forfeiture would seem to indicate the courts beg to differ.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Sure, you can go to another country. But, you are in the USA. Regardless of your opinion on it, you're responsible for paying (or not) your taxes.
FYI, the US and Libya are the only two nations that tax their former citizens _after_ they renounce citizenship (for the US, it is 10 yrs. after). You can tell the US to fuck off, but you might find it puts a crimp in your abilty to travel, even with your shiny new non-US passport.
If you are a US citizen, you must file a US federal income tax statement regardless of who you are working for or where. Recent legislation has put a lot of pressure on other countries to report earnings of US expats there. If you were to fall afoul of the local tax authorities (which is not a rare occurrence for expats, especially those who boast a large income as you do), it's quite likely the news will reach the IRS too. Furthermore, to obtain residency in many countries, you must show proof of income, and this always means a pay slip or a bank statement. Bitcoin salary or not, circumstances may force you to hold a bank account nonetheless.
Sure, you can freeload in your own country & take advantage of the infrastructure that other people pay for. Do you think your approach can scale?
You are making two flawed assumptions. The poster never gave an indication as to whether or not he pays taxes, he merely insinuated that he doesn't care about or participate in politics. Secondly, if we assume he is avoiding paying taxes, you cannot automatically posit that he doesn't contribute to the country or infrastructure with the funds saved. Many anarchists are conscientious objectors who will purposely invest money not paid towards funding the military industrial complex or subverting our privacy for non-profit causes instead.
READ THE ARTICLE! They can take the cash and then negotiate with the 'accused', (well - accused isn't the right term since they haven't accused anyone of anything), lets say 'suspissioned' to decide what percentage they are going to give back to keep it from costing the ... lets use the word 'VICTIM' from being bankrupt with legal fees and the futile aspect of fighting the IRS. ...
"First they came for the Tea Party, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a fiscal conservative."
"They they came for
It went out of fashion in the 1990s. Because War On (some) Drugs.
Seriously, people, this civil forfeiture bullshit has been going on since the late 20th century. It's legal roots go back to the 1600s, but it was the U.S. in the 1990s where it started to get egregious.
Are y'all just learning about it? Start with the wik for a decent overview.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If you're a US citizen OR green card holder, it doesn't matter where you reside or work. You owe taxes in the US. Even if you never step foot in the US for the entire year, you still have to report your worldwide income and file a tax return - and pay taxes owed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hint, neither are they.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So in this case, if you deposit slightly less than $10,000 then that also triggers the bank to privately report you to the government. All of the people mentioned in the article deposited slightly less than the $10,000 to avoid triggering, and they knowingly avoided it, although for different reasons (some did it because they thought it was a hassle for the bank, and they were trying to be nice?). So if you need to deposit $10,000+ in an account, then fucking do it! In this case, it "triggers" an event, but that event doesn't remove your money.
At least one had an entirely different reason - they were banking their cash before it reached $10,000 each time because their insurance policy had a $10,000 limit on claims for cash. Another was described as depositing wildly varying amounts at regular intervals, apparently just banking their business's weekly takings (or whatever) that just happened to always be between $5k and $10k.
Yes, there were a couple of cases where the avoidance of the limit sounded to be intentional, but that wasn't the case in all of the instances presented in the article.
No, you pretty much have to have a bank account nowadays, whether it's safe from the government or not. Try keeping your balance as low as possible to minimize the risk.
Ummm... Banks can suck my balls.. I've had my money in a credit union for the last 30 years or so.. They don't fee you to death, getting a loan is a piece of cake, and usually as convienient (or sometimes moreso) as a bank. Not to mention, if you have a problem, which I did, once, with my current credit union, I placed a call to the CEO of the credit union, whose phone number is plainly listed on the CU website.. Problem was solved WHILE I WAS on the phone with him... Try THAT with a bank... I dare ya..
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Hey, it could be worse right? It's not like they'll forcibly rape you in the ass without evidence.
Oh, wait.
Thinking of cops as anything but thugs that view everyone else as the enemy, who they can lie to, kidnap, steal from, and beat/tase/mace with total impunity, is naivete now reserved only for the people who have not yet been unfortunate enough to catch a cops eye (which doesn't require doing anything illegal). These people think that not all cops are bad simply because they see them not abusing someone, and the fact that many targets of the police are criminals who need to be removed from society. That doesn't excuse the fact that any cop who doesn't, at least sometimes, violate peoples rights (the friendly cop who helped you out probably also civilly forfeited his department a new margarita machine/zamboni/trip to disney-all real, btw), is at a minimum covering for his buddies that do. The entire system is rotten to the core: there are no good cops, only cops that are less pure evil and closer to how cops should act (that is, they occasionally arrest someone who deserves it without violating their rights).