Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
Nov. 18--Ordinary businesses, from bicycle shops to bookstores to bowling alleys, are being pressed into service on the home front in the war on terrorism.
Under the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush late last month, they soon will be required to monitor their customers and report "suspicious transactions" to the Treasury Department -- though most businesses may not be aware of this.
Buried in the more than 300 pages of the new law is a provision that "any person engaged in a trade or business" has to file a government report if a customer spends $10,000 or more in cash. The threshold is cumulative and applies to multiple purchases if they're somehow related -- three $4,000 pieces of furniture, for example, might trigger a filing.
Until now, only banks, thrifts, and credit unions have been required to report cash transactions to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. A handful of other businesses, including car dealers and pawnbrokers, have to file similar reports with the Internal Revenue Service.
"This is a big deal, and a big change, for the vast majority of American businesses," said Joe Rubin, chief lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce. "But I don't think anybody realizes it's happened."
The impact is less clear for consumers, although privacy advocates are uncomfortable with the thought of a massive database that could bring government scrutiny on innocent people. Immigrants and the working poor are the most likely to find themselves in the database, since they tend to use the traditional banking system the least.
"The scope of this thing is huge," said Bert Ely, a financial services consultant in Alexandria, Va. "It's going to affect literally millions of people."
The filing of so-called suspicious activity reports, though, is only the latest in a series of law enforcement moves the government has made in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. And so far, the filing requirement has been overshadowed by debate over the other changes.
The Patriot Act signed into law Oct. 26, for example, gives the government a vast arsenal of surveillance tools, easier access to personal information, and increased authority to detain and deport noncitizens. House and Senate negotiators came to terms Thursday on a bill that would add 28,000 employees to the federal payroll in an effort to bolster airport security, and Attorney General John Ashcroft has said he is reorganizing the Justice Department and the FBI to focus on counterterrorism efforts.
As for the business-filing requirement, specifics about what companies have to do and when they have to do it still need to be worked out. The Treasury Department has until March 25 -- the date the Patriot Act becomes law -- to issue regulations about how to put the new rules into practice.
"The law itself doesn't go into any detail, because you'd presume that's what the Treasury regulations are for," said Victoria Fimea, senior counsel at the American Council of Life Insurers. "And the devil, of course, is in the details."
When he signed the legislation, President Bush said the new rules were designed to "put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling, and money laundering." The problem, he and others have said, was keeping tabs on the billions of dollars that flow outside the traditional banking system and across national borders each year.
Money launderers often disguise the source of their money by using cash to buy pricey things. Later, they can resell the products and move the money into a bank account -- at which point it has been laundered, or made to look legitimate, by the aboveboard sale.
Making a series of transactions just below the $10,000 filing threshold is also illegal under the new law if it's done to keep a business from contacting the government.
Financial services companies such as banks, insurers, and stock brokerages face a higher standard under the new law than other businesses. In addition to the filing requirements, they have to take steps such as naming a compliance officer and implementing a comprehensive program to train employees about how to spot money laundering.
Unlike other businesses, though, most financial services companies already have a process in place to deal with government regulation.
"Certainly for the bigger [insurance] companies, they most likely are already tooled up for this," said Fimea. "For other companies, this creates a whole new landscape."
James Rockett, a San Francisco lawyer who represents banks and insurance companies in disputes with regulators, said he's skeptical the authorities will get any useful information from reports filed by nonfinancial companies.
"You're trying to turn an untrained populace into the monitors of money laundering activity," Rockett said. "If you want to stop this, it's got to be done with police work, not tracking consumers' buying habits."
Voices opposing any of the new law-enforcement measures appear to be in the minority, however. For now, at least, few people and few companies want to be perceived as being terrorist sympathizers.
"In a political sense, it would have been very hard for us to go to Congress in this case and loudly argue that the legislation shouldn't include nonfinancial-services guys," said Rubin, of the US Chamber of Commerce. "Everybody wants to help and to stop money laundering right now."
Scott Bernard Nelson can be reached by e-mail at nelson@globe.com.
To hear the paranoids around here all of what you have listed is already being done. If you actually knew what a "police state" meant you would not be posting this nonsense.
I understand now. We are talking about two different things. I am talking about what the Patriot Act says. And you are talking about what you think. Got it.
No, you are misreading my statements...but it is because we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the Patriot Act, what it says and what it doesn't say. You are talking about beliefs and religion and everything except the law as it is written. We are talking on parallel lines.
Perhaps (though you did not serve on a petit jury, and may not know what became of those you indicted -- and therefore cannot be certain of their guilt).
I have no doubt that police states can be more effective at suppression of unsanctioned crime. The point is, that if the cost is the imposition of governmental terror, the price is too high.
The end does not justify the means. The fact that police state tactics work is interesting, but is not proof that naked utilitarianism deserves a place in a free republic.
Maybe because that's the payment the seller prefers? An interesting coincidence: my bosses are rich guys. One of them collects cars. This week, preparing to attend an out-of-state auto auction, he sent his assistant to the bank to cash a large check. She came back with $30k in cash (she came in my office to show me). I don't do business this way, but if I were buying and selling large-ticket items with strangers, for immediate delivery, I want to be paid in something I believe in.
This is not to suggest that my cause is an all-cash economy; it isn't. My cause is resistance to tyranny. I reject any movement in the direction that we're all guilty till proven innocent; that it's up to us to establish the innocence of our motives, and up to us to show why we deserve to be left alone.
And if you ask her, I think you will find out she filled out a form at the bank before they would give her over $10,000 in cash. Think of that what you will.
I don't defend the law or try to justify it...I just try to explain what it is...and often I am shot because I am the messenger of news people don't want to hear.
My boss has nothing to hide in his cash transactions, and he completes the legal forms when as and if required. My point is that he should not have to.
Unfortunately, they didn't specify all of the rights they considered self evident. As just one example of the erosion of Rights since, compare Property Rights then and now.
Oh? Maybe you'll explain that to the cadre of cops at the random road stop'n'search I just drove through. Hell if I know what they were looking for; thank goodness I didn't have it.
(Ratchets the stove up a notch, checks the frogs...)
Which means that, according to you, the national government can pass an illegal law, but if the national government doesn't recognize that it is an illegal law, then it's legal.
Why, that's just silly. It's illegal from the moment it's enacted. No matter what the national government says. Calling the sky green doesn't change its shade of blue one degree.
I agree.
Considering we get the word "dollar" from "thaler," that's pretty funny.
Let me try this one more time. I never said the Congress could pass an illegal law. You stated, that it was your opinion that the Federal Patriot Act was unconstitutional. I responded, as politely as I could, that your opinion isn't part of the process. You may think whatever you want, but that does not make the law illegal. I hope I am clear on that.
Why, that's just silly. It's illegal from the moment it's enacted. No matter what the national government says. Calling the sky green doesn't change its shade of blue one degree.
Again, using your example, just because you say the law is unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.
I think our communication problem stems from your opinion that if a law is not to your liking, you can call it unconstitutional and that will be true.
I respectfully disagree. I don't like the law either but that does not make it constitutional.
And before I sign off for the night, let me give you a totally different example. I don't like it when the Neo-Nazis decide to march through the neighborhood of survivors of the Nazi death camps....but that is a protected activity under the Constitution. I hope you see my point. There are things I don't like...but they are legal.
My post from antoher thread :
I have an older relative who came up during the depression. At any time you can find him with $1800 in his wallet and $900 in his sock. I bet you anything, if you were to go through his house, you would find at least $10,000 stashed in the house. We have tried to tell him it is stupid to keep so much cash, but to no avail. Suppose he decided to listen to us (i.e. hell froze over) & gathered up the money to take it to the bank or even make a purchase with it (a car or a trip,).
Well, thanks to the Patriot Act, if he does gather up this cash and takes it to any business, he is to be reported to the appropriate agencies. Imagine that, he might be a terrorist or a drug dealer. This man in his 80's that worked his fingers to the bone his whole life will now be investigated by government agencies because of what he might be. Oh yeah, he has hunting rifles. Guns and large amounts of cash. Imagine a sneak & peak in the home of this 80 year old couple. Let's hope the stress of having to deal with something like that doesn't kill them before they get to a judge to argue their rights.
Crap. I can't remember the last time I went out with even $100 cash... that isn't the point. It might not make sense for you, or for me, but consider: it is within the realm of scope that someone can trade goods and/or services for the commodity (such as it is) called cash. It is property. I could easily have a garage sale and end up with $10,000 cash (assuming I sell everything I own down the the lath boards on the walls).
You are inferring suspicion and presuming guilt - from the possession and use of property that is not just illegal, but is in fact issued by the very gummint that is simultaneously claiming that it's use is 'suspicious'.
Huh?
Indeed, this is parallel to the WoD howling crapola of 'charging property with a crime' in order to relieve you of it... it's so ludicrous on the face as to be laughable, yet some folks eat it up like Mom's pumpkin pie with a mountain of Cool Whip. Mostly, the LEOs in the Jaguars. Which brings me to:
Rant 1: With all due respect, if LEOs would do their jobs, all of this would be a moot point. "Because the ____ is too ____________ to stop ____________, we all must give up (some of?) our rights" is the biggest non-starter argument I'll ever see on this forum. So don't start.
Fill in the blanks as appropriate. Some suggestions for: blank 1) FBI CIA etc ; blank 2) incompetent lazy underfunded ; 3) drugs crime terrorism
Look, just write a check.
Rant 2: It's nitwits with that attitude that make me wait 10 minutes to checkout in the express lane. And I've never once seen you people even start digging the checkbook out of your purse (applicable to the soccer-moms and Volvo-men who write checks at the grocery) ahead of time. This, while I'm standing there four people back with my milk, bread, and 5-spot in hand. Grrrr.
By privacy, I don't mean that no one can see me,
I mean that I am not required to explain my actions, unless I am accused of wrong-doing.
In other words, if someone demands that I explain why I paid cash for that car,
I am justified in telling them to mind their own business.
# 155 by exodus
*******************
To: exodus
"...if someone demands that I explain why I paid cash for that car,
I am justified in telling them to mind their own business."
You are right.
And this law does not say otherwise.
It says a record will be made that you paid cash for the car,
if you paid $10,000 or more. That has been the law for years.
If someone from the government later asks you why you did,
you have several choices: tell them, don't tell them,
ask them why they want to know,
ask to talk to a lawyer before responding further.
"But until someone from the government
asks you why....
the 4th Amendment does not apply."
# 176 by JD86
************
You're a lawyer?!
Assume government agents come into my house,
uninvited, without my permission.
They catalog all my possessions,
copy my hard drive, copy my written records,
and then distribute copies of all that
to any government agency that's interested
in seeing my collected personal data.
By your lawyerly reasoning,
that's not a search unless
they ask me to explain myself.
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.