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.
I also think that Mr. Rove & Co. need to remember that they're no longer running a campaign; they're helping their boss run a country.
To:
Benighted; seattlesue; Keeper of the Flame; vinylsidingman; dixie sass; Ms. AntiFeminazi
"...I remember how we fought side by side, to prevent the Fed Reserve and 3 others from making KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER the law of the land. We fought not just once, but at least 3 times to defeat this BS. And of course there were the usual sheeple that are so brain-deprived they couldn't/wouldn't believe their government had ulterior methods. Well, when President Bush says the new rules are designed to stop financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering, HE IS A LIAR......hello.....look at the rules they put in play in the Caribbean on small island nations after they were talked into using financial services to stimulate their economies......now, they are black-balling these same nations BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT USING THE SAME TAXING STRUCTURES THAT THE OTHER 'BIG' COUNTRIES ARE!!!... Can anyone truthfully say its no wonder all these other countries hate our guts!!
# 11 by Rowdee
************
That's not the worst, Rowdee.
Now our former comrades-in-arms consider us to be traitors,
because we refuse to accept what our leaders tell us.
When did it become a crime to question the actions of our politicians?
We can't even criticize the slanted news coverage
without being reminded that "we are at war."
Sorry, people.
There is no Declaration of War.
Bob Barr asked for one.
His fellow Congressmen didn't see any reason
to bother with that quaint requirement.
And that country is at war! Declared War or not!
Regards,
TS
It didn't. In fact, if / when you stop, you become just another drooling, CNN-worshipping a**hole.
Just understand that there may be other ways of looking at the actions of a President......a decent, Christian man..... at war. It really can be that simple at times.
I'll head off the inevitable: No, I don't worship at the altar of Bush. No, I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool "Bushie" (hell, I was a strategist in the Presidential campaign of a competitor to Bush in 2000); no, I don't think it's "unpatriotic" to question the very murmurings of the occupant of the Oval Office. My stance is clearly stated in reply #20, take it or leave it; your choice.
"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."
*******************
To: exodus
If you formed a group during colonial times to attack some city,
you would have had your persons and papers searched and alot more.
What you quoted is not a requirement that we become slack in our defense
or that we give safety to our enemies.
# 75 by Dialup Llama
************
What kind of reasoning is that?
If a group of people in colonial times had attacked "some city,"
they would have been declared outlaws, hunted down, and killed.
Our new government would not have passed un-Constitutional laws
abridging the rights of ALL citizens because of the actions of a few men.
Your "what you quoted" comment was very disrespectful, Dialup Llama.
Before you became a blind follower of our all-knowing leaders,
would you have allowed such a slur upon the Constitution?
Don't play dumb. You know exactly what I mean. People who are not engaged in illegal financial games will have nothing to fear from this new law.
I deposited more that $10k cash on several occasions. Someone may have investigated what I was up to. If they did, I never heard about it. If they did it is okay with me.
No, it isn't. Cash is Federal Reserve Notes, and these are not your papers. At best, you have only temporary custodial possession of Federal Reserve Notes.
First, I don't see this law as an intentional, nefarious conspiracy by any stretch. I do fear however that it is representative of the typical slippery slope. You state that this is war and some rights need to be suspended during wartime, which I recognize. One problem however is that we did not declare war and we are continuously reminded that pursuing the terrorists will take years. Combine this with the fact that the sunset clause that is supposed to protect us from a permanent loss of freedom is no assurance that the current legislation won't be easily renewed as a rider to a midnight congressional pay raise bill, or that a simple loophole pointed out by others will likely void the sunset clause altogether. Regardless of intent or the need to pursue terrorists, I fear that this particular piece of legislation is permanent and that fear is not unreasonable when one understands the nature of government.
My biggest concern with respect to much of this legislation is that the President and Congress continue to ignore the real tools used by enemies of this nation to attack us in our own neighborhoods - lax immigration law enforcement. We seem to have all kinds of laws that the FBI can now use against ordinary citizens (like entering our homes without ever telling us), yet we continue to let "students" with expired visas roam the country free as a bird. We force the overburdened and overregulated small business owner to add up all the transactions in cash that you and I make and fill out reports if they total more than $10,000, yet we release known illegal immigrants from nations known to support terrorists from prison, rather than shipping them back to their own countries or keeping them locked up during this time of "war."
Personally, I recognize that some measures in the bill were necessary and good. They did ask for the right to hold illegal immigrants for a longer period of time than previously allowed, which makes sense. What frustrates me however is that I can't figure out why it is ok to watch me in a manner previously not allowed, while those same illegal immigrants aren't held indefinitely or deported alogether. Yes, there are tools in the Patriot Act that will assist law enforcement in tracking terrorists. Unfortunately, I believe they slipped a lot of other stuff in there under the guise of anti-terrorism that they have always wanted but could not get because the things they wanted were unconstitutional as a cynical and opportunistic ploy. It happned when the Murrah building was bombed and it just happened again. A few more bombings and we won't be that much different than Stalinist Russia. Hyperbole? Perhaps. But 10 years ago, nobody would believe the measures they have recently slipped through.
To be sure, I blame Clinton for this, not Bush. I can even get conspiratorial and not discount the idea that Clinton was purposely setting us up for this for his own benefit. Nevertheless, the effect is real.
If you or somebody else could demonstrate for me how these measures will stop terrorism and that they won't be used for a single political purpose ever, I would feel better about it. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove a future event. The Framers understood the nature of government and put protections in the Constitution for this very reason, with the understanding that the impediments to government might make things difficult, but that those difficulties were more desirable than the alternative.
One thing I DON'T propose is giving up ANY Liberties...
This Nation was inspired by God...and ALL of our Rights come from God.
It IS NOT any governments job to restrict those rights.
redrock
My parents remember the WWII era quite well. My mom's memory is that everyone -- including her -- was patriotic, and that being patriotic meant supporting the government and not asking rude questions. My father was a front-line infantryman in WWII, and perhaps for that reason, and the fact that he grew up in Louisiana, he's always been less susceptible to the idea that government means well and can be trusted.
I do not like the fact that many of the actions being taken now are purely cosmetic, and are intended only to send the message that "something is being done". I do not like the fact that the government can take 1,000 men off the streets, holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, telling all who ask about them to get lost. I particularly do not like the new steps toward a police state culture, in which citizens are not just urged to be vigilant, but required to become spies and informers. It would be nice to think such measures can be temporary and limited, but recent history suggests the opposite, and shows that advances in RICO, asset forfeiture, zero tolerance, and the War on Drugs can be and continue to be abused by transforming us all into criminals at the government's whim. The easy tolerance for abortion, human embryo experimentation, and creeping euthanasia are solidifying the unspoken, unthinking consensus that each of us lives -- or dies -- not by virtue of unalienable Right, but because of someone else's Choice.
The advantages of such powers are not lost on the State. To be perfectly blunt, I expect people like you and me shortly to be an embattled minority in this country, with whatever remains of democracy in the hands of the stupid, the dependent, and those bent on social control and a re-engineering of the human condition. I see myself fighting a rearguard action, and am not interested in accelerating the speed of surrender.
You're just not getting it. The real question is not why do people fear the law if they have nothing to hide? It's why does the government fear the citizens if it means them no harm?
Why is no one asking this?
redrock
Simply put, I can't. That would be impossible for me to do, not to mention foolish. There is no doubt that this legislation.........as any legislation..........can be abused and probably will be by some a**hole somewhere, sometime.
"Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove a future event."
This is also true. It's also why we, as citizens who, ourselves, are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States have to stay vigilant as all hell during these times..............and even more so when it suddenly becomes generally accepted that "the war on terrorism" is won / over (which will never be a specific date like VE or VJ Day; it'll be a gradual realization; a general understanding of the world situation; perceived changes in mindsets in those countries that have traditionally supported terrorism, etc.).
If you seek assurances that laws / legislation such as the "Patriots Act" (I readily admit to hating that name) cannot be abused, you've come to the wrong guy. If you ask me if I think that many / most of its provisions are necessary during time of war, I'll say "Yes; absolutely." If you ask, in the next breath, whether or not we need to remain especially vigilant as citizens and activists that these same pieces of wartime legislation aren't turned against law-abiding, freedom-loving citizens........I'll say "You're damned RIGHT."
War does that. It makes us accept things, do things that we otherwise would not in an effort to ensure our Country's safety, the safety of our military personnel, and the continued existence of the American Ideal. It wasn't fun in WWI nor WWII nor Korea nor Vietnam nor even Desert Storm...........it sure as hell isn't fun now.
My point is simple: We must do what we must do to rid our country of the vermin that undoubtedly wander our highways and inhabit our apartment complexes as of this writing. We must also be certain that we hold those who are so tasked accountable...........now, in one year, in three years, in eight years.
I'll also add that I appreciate the wholly different tone of this conversation.
FR Thread - Proposed Visa Ban Dropped
However, I will say that it appears Congress is spineless. Looks like Academia is firmly in control of policy.
Once again. I sat on a Federal Grand Jury for a year. I have seen lots of citizens who did harm brought down by these money laundering laws.
To: exodus
Why do you think it is a 4th Amendment violation?
# 78 by JD86
************
The 4th Amendment, to me, enumerates our right to be left alone. Our private life is our own. If our neighbor asked us what we planned on doing, and why we were going to do it, we would be justified in telling him to mind his own business. If he saw us buy a car with cash, and demanded an accounting, we would be justified in telling him to mind his own business. Substitute "government" for "neighbor" and we still would be justified in saying "mind your own business."
The only legal exception would be in the investigation of wrong-doing, supported by the oath of an accuser. Even then, a limit would be set defining only investigation into relevant areas of the accused's life; wholesale interference with his privacy would not be allowed.
Contrast that with the pervasive scope of our government's surveillance today. ANY citizen can become the target of investigation, while doing nothing more than using cash to acquire property. With no oath from an accuser, without even a hint of wrong-doing, with no limit on the intenstiy of the violation of the citizen's privacy, a man has to justify every facet of his life to people who have no reason to be bothering him.
I see that as a clear violation of the restriction placed on government by the 4th Amendment.
The real question is why would you oppose a law that is of minimal impact on lawabiding citizens and of maximum impact on catching bad guys? Just because it is a law doesn't mean it is bad. Please give me a litigimate reason why a lawabiding person would want to pay $10,000 in cash for anything, other than just to show he could...and it would definitely be a guy....most people want to write a check or use a credit card so they personally have a record of the transaction. Other than a generalized fear of government...what is your reason?
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.