Posted on 08/20/2006 8:57:44 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
Perfect summation.
It's not "nuff said" because if you ran a business where you sold commercial trucks that cost in the neighborhood of $100 grand to anyone who came in with a cooler full of cash the odds are that you would be dealing with criminals, gangsters, or persons who otherwise acquired that kind of cash by illegitimate means. I find it very hard to believe that anyone who ran a dealership would finalize a deal like that without telling the buyer to go to a bank first. You just would not want to accept that amount of cash no matter what was printed on the bills.
Please, seriously, this is the real world, not some exercise in theoretical absolutisms. I stand by my assertion that there is something very suspicious with the behavior of the defendants, and likewise anyone who would deal with them with that amount of cash.
My father ran a yacht brokerage (same idea as real estate, but with boats). Nobody would come into his office with a duffel bag full of cash and want to buy a boat. The idea is ridiculous, and anyone doing that would be shown to the door.
It may be wrong to you but it was caused by money laundering which is against the law. You can put over $10,000 in the bank -- you just have to explain where it came from which I have no problem.
Other than the two parties concerned, it realy is not anybody elses bussiness.Cash is legal to own! At what amount do you think the government should get involved? Too some a $100 is a lot of cash, to others $10,000 is mere pocket change.
What we think or feel is unimportant. Proof is what is needed.
Yup, the guvmint needs their share of the booty don't they.
Possibly, but not with the same self serving intent as with a law enforcement agency. Law enforcement stands to put that money in their own pockets (budget) by confiscation of money claimed to be "drug money". There is a definite conflict of interest built into the law. Such confiscation should be limited to cases where a felony conviction is obtained and the trial includes incontrovertable evidence that the money was derived from the sale of illegal drugs. As observed by another post, confiscations routinely occur in cases where no charges are ever filed. The standard of proof is too lax. It tramples all over personal property rights without due process of law.
While I agree with you there is something suspicion going on here, I have to say that any businessman that refuses a cash sale, regardless of the product, should not be in business.
Can you say: "illegal immigration" ???
ding, ding, ding.... "We have a new contestant on the Price is Right!
So are you saying ANYONE that uses cash to make large purchases are suspect of something illegal?
Most dealerships will not accept over $9000 cash. If you want to buy a vehicle without credit you will usually have to pay with a combination of check, cash and multiple cashier checks all less than $9000 each.
LAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.I respectfully dissent. Although the circumstantial evidence offered by the government provides some indication that the money seized in this case may be related to criminal activity, I cannot agree that the government has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the requisite substantial connection between the currency and a controlled substance offense. Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money. There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution. At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record before us. See United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) ([A] mere suspicion of illegal activity is not enough to establish . . . that the money was connected to drugs.).
... Here, the only evidence linking the seized money to illegal drug activity is a canine sniff that alerted officers to the presence of narcotics on the currency itself and the exterior of the rear passenger side of the rental car where the currency was discovered. However, as Justice Souter recently recognized, a large percentage of currency presently in circulation contains trace amounts of narcotics. ...
Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
How many illegals can they fit into a refrigeration truck and smuggle them across the border in that heat?
BS - just because someone uses cash does NOT mean they are doing anything wrong.
I'm up a creek without the proverbial paddle if that is how we are going to start operting here.
Go read the decision.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf
Nobody flies to Chicago to buy a truck, with $124,000 in cash.
Anyone starting a business needs records and cash don't leave records.
Gonzalez was an idiot and got caught.
and No, most money will not peak a dog's interest.
Money packed in bags that used to contain drugs, peaks a dog's interest.
That's not true.
I bought a $34k car with a single personal check.
So Ahmed, Abdul and Vaheed offer you a garbage bag full of cash for an agricultural helicopter that disperses pesticides; you sell no questions asked?
You'll be in the Fortune 500 in no time at all...
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.