Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 10/04/2013 12:32:27 PM PDT by Rusty0604
Can the government use civil forfeiture to take your money when you have done nothing wrong—and then pocket the proceeds? The IRS thinks so.
For over 30 years, Terry Dehko has successfully run a grocery store in Fraser, Mich., with his daughter Sandy. In January 2013, without warning, the federal government used civil forfeiture to seize all of the money from the Dehkos’ store bank account (more than $35,000) even though they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. Their American Dream is now a nightmare.
Federal civil forfeiture law features an appalling lack of due process: It empowers the government to seize private property from Americans without ever charging, let alone convicting, them of a crime. Perversely, the government then pockets the proceeds while providing no prompt way to get a court to review the seizure.
On September 25, 2013, Terry and Sandy teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back in federal court.
(Excerpt) Read more at ij.org ...
Jeff... No not illegal to have money but it is a crime to hold over $ 10,000.00 in cash. Not that they will lock you up but they can take the cash.
LOL, “reason”? Seriously? I think you know better than that.
“From the complaint filed it seems as though the grocery store made some deposits of over $10,000”
I think you have it backwards. The problem was that they were keeping their deposits under $10k - ‘structuring’. The bank may have filed a a SAR. Most folks think that it takes a cash transaction of over $10k to generate a SAR, but the law has changed.
It is actually worse than that. The store was routinely making cash deposits of less than $10,000. Banks are required to report cash transactions over that amount. The perversity of the situation (and the display of arrogance and intrusiveness of the federal government) lies in the fact that the store was targeted and its assets seized because it was not meeting the guideline for suspicion... which the government says is suspicious.
This is essentially armed robbery. It isn't even theft "under color of law", which is rampant, as no laws were broken and the store owners were not accused, charged or convicted of any crime. When government acts in this manner, violence is warranted. It scares me that our federal government acts in this manner and leaves citizens with little other option.
I think that you need to dig a little deeper into this case. From what I saw, the victim’s excuse was that their insurance policy would not cover cash on premises losses in any amount more than $10k. So it would make perfect sense for them to deposit before cash on hand exceeds this amount, language barrier or not.
Pretty sure that $10K requirement is for international travel. You simply have to declare it if you have it on your person.
I did read that part about insurance. I still don’t think we have all the facts. Most retail stores I’ve consulted with use a security pick up/delivery when they have a lot of cash being delivered or needing depositing.
I am not accusing these store owners of anything...I’m just not sure the whole story is being made public.
I certainly hope that if they prevail in court...they get their money back...w/ interest.
That's not right. Free country, huh? I don't think so, hasn't been for too many years.
Their insurance would not cover over $10,000.00 if they were robbed. So they made several deposits a day to make sure that they stayed under the $10,000.00 mark.
I used to work in a gas station and when there was a shift change there was a bank run and in the middle of the shift there was a bank run. It was as simple as that to make sure we never had large amounts of cash on hand because that prevented us from getting hit by gangs. Our under a thousand dollars was not worth their time.
So it is not just the insurance but about not making yourself an attractive target.
You miss the point. They did not want to have a lot of cash being deposited or delivered. Small amounts are safer for every one.
They did not want to have large amounts of cash on hand so they put it in the bank.
Really? Got a citation for that?
/johnny
“Upon conclusion of the audit, Dehko Foods received a
notice dated April 18, 2012, stating that
“no violations were identified”
Now THIS is interesting——no violations. (From the PDF document)
.
Michigan -> Fraser Grocery store owner Lawsuit against IRS
Government’s use of civil forfeiture to take money belonging to the Dehkos for allegedly making deposits into Dehko Foods’ PNC Bank account for the purpose of avoiding currency reporting requirements that apply to cash transactions above $10,000.
No, I did not miss the point. We don’t have a disagreement.
I’m saying the store’s version of events does not match my experience in dealing w/ retail stores. It doesn’t mean they did anything wrong. It means I don’t think the whole story has been made public.
There is no where in the articles provided that it says what the deposit amounts were...just that the owners consistently made deposits under $10,000. Their version is that they didn’t understand the law because English was a second language: because their store did a high percentage of cash business; and that their insurance company would not insure a loss in excess of $10,000 cash.
I am saying 2 out of 3 of those arguments don’t make sense to me based on the information we have presented and based on my experience w/ these kind of businesses.
That about sums it up. Its getting scary.
And when the rioting in the streets over government excess the MSM will plead “But why? Why are you doing this?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.