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.
Not right now. But believe me, if history teaches one thing, it's that a government that is granted an arbitrary and excessive temporary power, will never give back that arbitrary and excessive power, and will use that arbitrary and excessive power in ways you never imagined. It's called: Unintended Consequences.
The accretion of power to the center acts like a black hole, a gravity-suck pulling more and more authority, until you have full-blown totalitarianism. Wiser men than you or I have known this: they wrote the Constitution specifically to shackle the central government and curtail this inexorable phenomenon for as long as possible.
Or maybe they just realized that people are inherently dumb and/or corrupt, I haven't decided which.
Well, if the photo-red traffic cameras are in your house....I might agree with you.
As for 'charge property with a crime' I have no clue what you are talking about...
unless it is the forfeiture laws for property used by a person in the commission of a crime.
Been raising a little weed out back, have you?
Two questions:
1)Have you heard we are at war?
2)Have you heard of sunset provisions for statutes?
It was a nifty contrivance during the War On (Some) Drugs to circumvent little things like unlawful search and seizure and the presumption of innocence. Sounded like a good deal at the time, right? Take drug dealers money so they can't hire Johnny Cochran and beat the rap.
I don't need to point you to the seventy-billion threads that provide concrete examples of how these procedures have been used by LEOs to harass, extort, and outright steal from citizens who have nothing to do with drugs, do I? Unintended consequences.
Been raising a little weed out back, have you?
LOL, I love seeing the Stupid Party thought process in action; particularly the automatic link between ardent proponents of { personal freedom | personal responsibility | inalienability of rights } and users of drugs. Constantly trying to legislate the unlegislatable - morality. Really, you can't buttress your argument better than to impugn that I must be either high, a drug dealer, or both?
Hell, you're so cocksure who I am, why don't you go ahead and report me to the DEA while you're at it. You'll illustrate the points made here about the Patriot Act better than I ever could.
I mean, I must be behaving awfully "suspiciously" by not being another bleating sheep expecting nanny.fed.gov to gladly repay next Tuesday the inalienable rights I loan them today.
We are? Then we're back to square one in this thread: link me to our Declaration Of War, and I'll believe it.
I apologize for my feeble attempt at humor. Perhaps I should explain that is a major cash crop in my home state and that, in my experience,
most people who are fully aware of the forfeiture law have had personal knowledge of it...
I am certain our troops appreciate your support.
Sneak & Peek (among a few others) is not subject to the sunset clause...refreshing isn't it?
a. No one really knows what is in the bill; lack of specificity
b. it is ripe for exploitation and manipulation by less than honorable gov't officials. It can and will be used against innocent citizens. From :
The EFF is pleased that at least some of the more severe changes in the surveillance of U.S. persons contained in the USAPA will expire on December 31, 2005 unless renewed by Congress. We are concerned, however, that there is no way for Congress to review how several of these key provisions have been implemented, since there is no reporting requirement to Congress about them and no requirements of reporting even to a judge about several others. Without the necessary information about how these broad new powers have been used, Congress will be unable to evaluate whether they have been needed and how they have been used in order to make an informed decision about whether and how they should continue or whether they should be allowed to expire without renewal.
Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware of the two categories. I also agree with your analysis.
"All of the comments I have made on this thread are about the Federal Patriot Act....
NOT about wild scenarios that people make up and say what if the government did this....???
Your comments above are a prime example....
if you can show me any language in the Patriot Act that allows the behavior in your hypothetical....
then I will respond.
Otherwise, your made up example has no value in this discussion."
************
Lawyer, are you telling me that you have never used a hypothetical argument in court? Jesus himself used hypothetical arguments that had no direct bearing on the question being addressed, but still served to provide understanding of the issue under discussion.
You, lawyer, are passing yourself off as an authority on the Constitution. You have not convinced me that you could pass a high school reading comprehension test. You ignore the context of my replies.
And your question is what exactly? Perhaps you could use little words so I will understand.
"...Let me try to give you an example for comparison.
Let us say we were discussing the right of a parent to discipline their child without government interference. Let us say my position was that the parents should be allowed to discipline the child. And then you ask well, what if they tie the child up and torture the child and then they kill the child and then they bury the child in the backyard...is that okay? Do you still believe parents can discipline the child? Obviously torture and murder are not within the realm of discipline considered appropriate by most parents. Your example is just as extreme. There is NOTHING in the Patriot Act about going into your house and doing ANYTHING so your example does not apply in this discussion.
# 361 by JD86
************
What?!
What possible relevance does an example of punishing a child
have in a discussion of the relationship
between the 4th Amendment and the un-Constitutional "Patriot Act?"
Is it possible that there is a place for parables in this discussion?
Don't fuss at me just because I don't agree with you.
And you ignore my answers. Since you didn't read it the first time. Here is a copy of my last response to you.
Let me try to give you an example for comparison. Let us say we were discussing the right of a parent to discipline their child without government interference. Let us say my position was that the parents should be allowed to discipline the child. And then you ask well, what if they tie the child up and torture the child and then they kill the child and then they bury the child in the backyard...is that okay? Do you still believe parents can discipline the child? Obviously torture and murder are not within the realm of discipline considered appropriate by most parents. Your example is just as extreme. There is NOTHING in the Patriot Act about going into your house and doing ANYTHING so your example does not apply in this discussion.
And your question is what exactly?
Perhaps you could use little words so I will understand.
# 393 by JD86
************
That's another example of taking things out of context.
I didn't ask a question.
I made a statement.
You have a funny way of showing it....:)
That's why I am confused. I thought you were interested in my opinion. My mistake.
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.