I have been making reasonable arguments throughout, so please do me the courtesy of skipping the insults right now.
Cash transactions are one thing when the amount is not excessively large and the parties that one is dealing with are well-known or otherwise have verifiable, established ties to the community or local area. As a businessman, you are putting yourself at potential risk in two ways if you deal with just any Johnny-out-of-town with a duffel bag full of cash: you could end up hurting your own reputation and you could end up with legal or bureaucratic hassle later on down the road. One is running the risk that the purchaser acquired that large amount of cash in some illegitimate way; why put your hard-earned reputation at risk for someone you don't know?
Additionally, if word gets around that one deals with large amounts of cash, then that will increase one's risk for being a victim of either burglary or robbery. That seems like common sense; I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it before.
I'm sure that any of us here at Free Republic could, if we were facing the possible loss of $125 grand, be able to satisfactorily demonstrate that we came by that money honestly. You may say that one shouldn't have to, but the fact is, that if such an amount was acquired legally, then one is certainly capable of demonstrating that. Since it appears that the men in this case did not do that, then it follows that they couldn't, and thus it is more than likely that such money was not acquired legally.
Yep, guilty until proven innocent. Lovely standard you have that turns the Constitutional one on its ear.
Umm hi Tancred Did you read the story? no we cant! nobody that has 124k in cash can satisfactorily demonstrate that we came by the money honestly. the court just ruled that if we have that much we ARE DRUG DEALERS period and the cops(read that as fascist p**ks) cans take our mnoney and not even arrest us so your premise is wrong we are now officially a soviet police state plane and simple
I'm amazed that you think the burden of proof is on the citizen rather than the government. It is generally very difficult to prove a negative. Prove you didn't drive recklessly yesterday. Prove you didn't steal the $10 in your wallet from an unnamed elementary school child at an unspecified date.