Posted on 06/03/2011 8:25:09 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
A well-dressed Mexican man checked into the ritzy Westin Oaks Hotel last week, bringing with him a large, black rolling suitcase and a gym bag packed with nearly $1 million in cash.
For at least two days, the man came and went from the Galleria-area hotel room like any tourist, shopping in Houston’s mega-mall, dining in local restaurants and even taking in a movie, authorities said.
All the while, federal agents watched him, acting on a tip that the man was tied into money laundering for a drug trafficking organization.
As he went to check out May 26, federal agents confronted him in the hallway outside his room. They asked him to step into another hotel room where they’d coordinated their stakeout.
The man seemed “shocked,” and complied, bags in tow, said Michael Booker, an assistant special agent in charge with the federal Homeland Security Investigations in Houston. He didn’t act surprised to find the money in the bags, agents said, but he did play dumb rather well.
“He immediately said, ‘I don’t know anything about the money. It was given to me, and I was told to deliver it,’” Booker said.
And, offering agents little to go on, he walked away from the money and the hotel room. Booker said they didn’t have enough to hold the man.
“Unfortunately, it’s not illegal to carry around large sums of money,” Booker said. “We do have laws on the books for bulk-cash smuggling, but you have to meet certain criteria.”
Booker said agents suspect the money was laundered drug proceeds that were headed back to Mexico.
He said the man, who was in the U.S. on a valid visa, said the money was to be delivered to someone in Houston, but didn’t provide information on the drop-off. So HSI agents were left with the luggage, packed tight with $20 and $10 bills, totaling $995,020.
The cash will end up in the National Treasury Forfeiture Fund, which is used to support crime-fighting efforts, said Gregory Palmore, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman.
Booker said HSI agents were taken aback that the man was so casual carrying a million dollars. He had no locks on the luggage, and the cleaning staff came in and out of his room every day, Booker said.
“This was a well-dressed, clean-cut individual staying at a high-end hotel,” Booker said. “You never would have suspected it.”
Our war on drugs is absolutely insane. The illegality of drugs is what makes a very inexpensive product astronomically expensive. The profits from the drug trade have Mexico on the verge of being a failed state. If Mexico fails, the spillover from this into the United States will be catastrophic.
There is only two ways to solve the problem. The first way is the "Singapore Solution." In Singapore if you sell illegal drugs you are hung. If you use drugs you will have short but extremely unpleasant stay in their penal system. There is no ACLU in Singapore.
Legalization will also solve the crime problem associated with drugs. If you can get "your fix" for few bucks, it is not necessary to rob and or kill me to obtain the money.
A goodly percentage of those that use drugs will eliminate themselves by overdose, if they have access to plentiful and cheap drugs. That is good and society will be better off for their demise. A small percentage of the drug users will decide they do not want to be addicts. Society should help those individuals "kick the addiction." Either of the two solutions above will work. What we have now does not work, will not work, and is a total failure. However, the United States is not ready to execute some kid for selling a small amount of drugs. This leave the second option as the only workable answer.
Please note that alcohol consumption went down after prohibition was repealed.
Also note that, I do not use drugs.
I see where you are coming from. My question is if they did not have any legitimate reason to hold the man, how could they justify taking the money? If some laws need to be tweaked to cover these situations- then they need to get after it. I don’t like the idea that they had no reason to hold him but could confiscate the money. Getting drug money off the street is great, would have been better if they would have been able to get him off the street, and possibly information from his arrest might have led to others in the organization.
Yes, and that is a greater danger to us than the drug trade.
It is not the government’s money. Why do they get to seize it?
How many other contributions have the Drug Cartel made to politicians to keep the border open?
______________________________________________
But don’t you see? If we listen to the libs here and just legalize the stuff, ALL our problems will just disappear and the Cartels will be run out of business.
No seriously. That is what these liberaltarians are claiming. (lolol) Surrender in the WOD. (ROFLMAO)
Whether the government is right or wrong to be suspicious, my problem is with the notion that the government has the authority to seize property just because they are suspicious.
I'm still waiting for your answer regarding what sum of money you are willing to accept as a maximum threshold beyond which the government can simply seize at will? And who in government has your approval to adjust that threshold downward?
Legalization will also solve the crime problem associated with murder too. And rape. And every other crime.
Are you listening to yourself?
And what if you do get your way and legalize drope? You relly want to increase the dopers and addicts a hundred fold in our neighborhoods? You really want our children having access to dope as easliy as they do beer and alcohol
Liberalism is a mental disease. And here is your spokesman:
While I've seen a few comments about the "failure" of the WOD, most of the comments I've seen are more about the constitutioanl problems of seizure of property without due process and the like. Apparently some here believe that the only way to fight against the drug cartels is to surrender our liberties.
Just out of curiosity, when you chose your screen name, was "Capitulation1st_Responsibility2nd_FreedomMayeSomeday" too long to fit?
The kicker here:
“Unfortunately it is not illegal to carry around large amounts of money.”
Why? Why is it unfortunate being able to carry around large amounts of money is illegal? Who determines what “large” is?
I mean, if the cops want to investigate suspicious people for actual CRIMES and find a lot of money tied to criminal behavior, great. DO THE EFFING POLICE WORK.
But why is it so terrible people can walk around with “lots” of money and that is legal - how awful. Makes me shudder.
Effing government morons. THEY ought to be illegal. Idiots like this scare me more than a guy with a suitcase full of money.
I’m still waiting for your answer regarding what sum of money you are willing to accept as a maximum threshold beyond which the government can simply seize at will? And who in government has your approval to adjust that threshold downward?
___________________________________________________
2 Questions. 2 Answers....
1. $10,000
2. The president for starters. Barack Obama, George Bush (both of ‘em), Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, all the way back. The point is, I trust Barack Obama and his drug enforcement policies far more than I would ever support your idea of the perfect president:
(Ron Paul)
Now. Here is where you scream how Ron Paul IS NOT your candidate. Here is where you get to rant that Paul is a kook and a nut-job and so on.
And he is. But face it. You are a libertarian. And so is Paul. And you CAN NOT distance yourself and your pro-drug laws from the nutty ideas that Ron Paul espouses.
(You hate this don’t you. But it’s true)
Ron Paul = Libertarianism.
Libertarianism = Ron Paul.
The majority of Law Enforcement on the street and in the boonies along the border are serious about doing their job and they face great dangers while doing it. There are a few bad apples as in all groups- but most are professionals trying to do a very tough job. Up the food chain from the LEO doing his job are politicians that have their own reasons for not wanting this to all be stopped. You are wrong to say that no one wants this stopped, the majority of citizens want it stopped and the majority of LEO want it stopped. Politicians and policy makers for various agencies are the problem.
The whole WOD is unconstitutional anyways. We had to pass the 18th and 21st amendments to outlaw and then allow booze so how can a law due what requires a Constitutional Amendment. The gov is way over the line in the powers it continues to steal from us.
Looks like a few congressmen won’t get paid this month.
1. $10,000
2. The president for starters. Barack Obama, George Bush (both of ‘em), Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, all the way back. The point is, I trust Barack Obama ....
OK, so you consider the statutory Currency Transaction Reporting threshold as a maximum amount of cash that an individual (including yourself) should be able to carry around in cash without being subject to having the cash summarily confiscated by the authorities. That is an interesting position to take, but you are certainly entitled to that opinion; and it doesn't necessarily mean that you place a miniscule value on personal freedom. But I guess it does mean that if you were to engage in some cash business transaction that resulted in your having $20,000 in cash in a bag or briefcase or whatever and while on your way to the bank to deposit it, the police stopped you for a traffic violation or just because you happened to do something that they deemed "suspicious" it would be perfectly OK with you for the police to confiscate your cash even though they didn't have any legal reason to detain you. (The 5th Amendment isn't just for liberaltarians anymore.)
no doubt citizens want it stopped. LEO have a serious conflict of interest. An end to the so called WOD means less jobs and smaller budgets
2 things.
Can you name me a legitimate business transaction that would involve anyone carrying $20,000 to the bank? There are armored car services, you know.
And IF you did have $20,000 confiscated? All you need do is show ordinary proof that it was legit and not related to a crime. Sure, it would be a hassle, but stupid people (and drug couriers) SHOULD be hassled.
the so called WOD has been going on for how long? Is it to go on in perpetuity? Save your outrage for the people that are using your son and his fellow officers to keep the game going.
Check out this report on Portugal;
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
I remember reading an article of a black landscaper from Houston going to Mexico to buy plants for his business. He had $12,000 cash on him for that purpose. His money was taken from him at the border because the DEA said he was going to Mexico to buy drugs.
This is the first I have heard since that there is not law against it. I suppose that is just another benefit of our War on Drugs, in addition to legal home invasions and “accidental” killings.
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.