Posted on 07/09/2024 8:51:24 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
KEY POINTS
The Bank Secrecy Act has been around since the Nixon administration.
The law was designed to stop criminal enterprises, large and small.
Unless you're breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.
It's your money, and generally, you have the right to withdraw as much -- or as little -- as you desire from your bank account. However, under a law called the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), banks must report any deposits or withdrawals of $10,000 or more. Here, we'll cover why the BSA exists and if it's anything you need to be concerned about.......
During the Nixon administration, the government decided to pursue financial fraud at the banking level. To catch money launderers, drug dealers, and other bad players, they needed the help of financial institutions. And so the Bank Secrecy Act was born.
Under BSA, banks became legally obligated to report any deposits or withdrawals over $10,000.
In all fairness to the government, $10,000 was worth a heck of a lot more in 1970 than it is today. In fact, a deposit or withdrawal of $10,000 in May 1970 was worth $81,365 in today's money, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' CPI Inflation Calculator. If someone made a deposit or withdrawal that large back then, it was worth noticing.
What's interesting is that the $10,000 threshold hasn't changed. Because $10,000 doesn't have the buying power it once did, there are more Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) being sent to the IRS than ever before.
(Excerpt) Read more at fool.com ...
Until the tptb turns off the electricity.
5.56mm
If you do that more than one or two times, it’s called “Structuring” and it will get you far more attention than just putting in the full amount. It’s a “suspicious activity report” and putting in just under is “suspicious.”
9999 will raise more eyebrows than 10k !
I took out $21,000 a few months ago. I had to tell them that I was purchasing a car.
“let us track you on your cell phone”. You walk to the Mall in DC on January 6,2021 and you are arrested on the basis of you being there-— with your cell phone?
Doesn’t seem correct whatsoever. There are several hundred people incarcerated on the basis of this.... “tracking”.
In order not to have it? Well, that would be criminal dontcha know?
The Stasi could only wish to have such ability- back in their day. First Amendment exercised peacefully is NOT a crime. And apparently just letting anyone into our country without any passports, identification or anything— THAT is a Government Crime massive one.
Which is illegal, because it’s clearly skirting the law, and IIRC, that law says it’s illegal to skirt the law by taking it out in such a manner as to avoid the obligatory report. Wide open to interpretation!
"Here's What Happens if You Withdraw $10,000 From Your Bank Account"
Democratic and Republican Trump supporters, consider that the repealable 16th Amendment (16A; direct taxes) weakened your 4th Amendment protections by giving the unconstitutionally big federal government a great excuse to stick its big nose into your banking records, taxpayers now regularly paying unconstitutional, unaccountable federal taxes as a consequence of federal government's abuse of 16A powers.
"4th Amendment: 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."
"16th Amendment : The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived [emphasis added], without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by [reasonably constitutionally justifiable] Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time [emphasis added]."
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
But let's not concern ourselves with repealing 16A just yet. (The 17th Amendment can disappear too.)
Since Congress has repeatedly proven that it is an enemy of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" Congress in November. Patriots need to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.
last time a bank teller asked me what I was going to do with my money I told them “Strippers and Coca Cola”
“The Bank Secrecy Act” … Orwellian name.
I used to have to take the Suspicious Activity test when I worked at the bank.
It is up to the teller to determine what is suspicious. The dollar amounts reflect the “mandatory” reporting. But the teller can determine “your three $9,999 deposits” were suspicious and fill out the form.
Filling out the form does not trigger an investigation. They usually go into a file somewhere and they might lead to something in the future.
Finally, if the teller does NOT report suspicious activity they can be personally fined by the Treasury Department. It is one of a few “crimes” where an employee can be personally liable above and beyond the liability of the bank.
“The only people who wear a mask are those involved in illegal activity.” Democrats offended now
“While the BSA may feel intrusive to some, the law is in place to protect us from those who help fund terrorists by laundering their money and others who cheat the system, ultimately costing us all more.
Like removing our shoes at the airport or waiting in line at a border crossing, the BSA is one more way the government hopes to make us safer.”
Silly chick writer.
Per the article: “It’s your money, and generally, you have the right to withdraw...”
I don’t think that’s true now-s-days. Correct me if I’m wrong but it was written in the legislation that your deposits are actually loans to the bank, making you an unsecured creditor.
It was done after the 2008 financial crisis by the G20 and/or Dodd/Frank.
SVB was the final bailout and that was because the depositors were ultra rich. After that, only bail-ins.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong (and I hope I am!!).
It’s your money, and generally, you have the right to withdraw as much — or as little — as you desire from your bank account.
~~~
I call BS.
Sure, you have the ‘right’ to your money, but I don’t buy that it’s all ‘designed to stop criminal enterprises’. Sure that would be a benefit, but more likely to me, the IRS wants an easy way to flag anyone trying to make high value cash purchases so they can figure out who isn’t reporting their sales.
If indexed to housing, 10K in 1970 is more like a quarter million now, if not more.
My understanding is that you are correct.
“Why worry if you have nothing to hide.”
😂🤣😂
Making criminals out of all of us.
Which is not a joke.
Something like that will get far more attention than just doing the 10k or more deposit or withdrawal.
The banks look for people attempting to avoid triggering a CTR by that kind of method. I know someone very well who does that kind of thing for a living and was given the low down on how it works.
"The law was designed to stop criminal enterprises, large and small.
Unless you're breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about [??? emphasis added]."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
If the feds are investigating criminal enterprises for possible violations of federal laws that deal with domestic violence, the problem is that such laws are probably unconstitutional imo.
More specifically, evidenced by the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, the drafters had constitutionally ordered the federal government to always STAND DOWN to domestic violence unless a state formally requests federal assistance to help stop the violence.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphases added]."
In fact, the congressional record shows a clarification by Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, explaining no federal constitutional power to directly deal with domestic violence, not even for murder.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union [emphases added]. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
Sooner or later, state and federal lawmakers, under the proven leadership of hopeful Trump 47 will need to decide the fate of people who are in prison for breaking a violence-related, desperate Democratic and RINO vote-winning federal law that the feds actually have no constitutional justification to make.
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.