Never keep any money in a bank. Only credit unions.Not FDIC.
“Papers, please.”
Unusual banking “patterns” are how they caught Rush Limbaugh up in that Oxycontin deal.
Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
This Barak Obama is a communist/socialist monster
illegally regulated the Internet and committed a million other crimes now this
no one has tried to stop Obama nor even call him out on all of this least of all the evil news media
This Barak Obama is a communist/socialist monster
Obama illegally regulated the Internet and committed a million other crimes now this
no one has tried to stop Obama nor even call him out on all of this least of all the evil news media
Look up Suspicious Activity Report (SARs). It’s a mandate in the Bank Secrecy Act for banks, credit unions and insurance companies.... They’re different than Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs).
I withdrew $8400 cash a couple of weeks ago to pay my friend/contractor for some repairs on one of my properties. So far no one has come knocking on my door.
Do you have more of a respectable website or info other than the link saying Shi@ hit@ the fan?
Banks are very hostile to giving you cash, in general.
I just started taking out cash to piss them off.
"And what is your destination? Purpose for your trip? How long do you plan to stay? Where are you ..."BUMP.
For years, if you deposited $10k or more, you’d be reported. Best to bury that $10 and dig up what you need.
This is our New Police force! And how much they give a crap!
Good luck with that in Las Vegas.
If I had a few thousand to play with, I think I would just keep moving it around between a few banks, just for fun.
This is not new. Try getting $10k transfered from Poland.
Also, as FReepers read the material in this post, please bear in mind that the ill-conceived 17th Amendment arguably helped to foster today’s unconstitutionally big federal government sticking its big nose into the nation’s banks.
When Constitutional Convention delegate Benjamin Franklin suggested granting Congress the specific power to build canals, canals used to move freight to improve commerce, his fellow delgates thought about it but ultimately rejected the idea. Otherwise, canals would have appeared after mail roads in Clause 7 of Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
But what’s important to this thread concerning banking is this. The delegates decided not to implement Dr. Franklin’s suggestion for canals because they felt that it would give Congress an excuse to establish a national bank and ultimately to regulate banking. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s writings.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
In fact, the Supreme Court later clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And if there’s any question that Congress cannot regulate intrastate banking because it cannot regulate intrastate commerce, then consider the following.
Bank conduct business on the basis of contracts, not commerce (corrections welcome). In fact, the Supremes have not only clarified that such business does not constitute commerce but are contracts, but also that Congress’s Commerce Clause powers do not extend to regulating contracts even if such contracts are negotiated across state borders.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869.
Also, I thank Ken H for mentioning the Bank Secrecy Act. I think that the following material might apply to that act.
Both Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court have clarified that the Senate cannot use its constitutional power to negotiate treaties as a back to forcing the states to comply with laws which are based on powers which the states have never delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .
Note that Jefferson undoubtedly based his insight to limits of treaty power on his experience as vice president and president of the Senate.
A more important example concerning limits on treaty powers powers comes from the Supreme Court. In fact, the Court reflected on Jefferson’s words, clarifying that Congress cannot use it’s power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956.
So I don’t see where the feds have the constitutional authority to tell banks what to do.
So what am I overlooking?
The problem with the popularly elected Senate is this imo. After low-information citizens vote for their federal senators they go home and watch football, oblivious to the idea that the Senate is doing all kinds of things that it has no constituitonal authority to do.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate [emphasis added] to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear imo.
In France they used terrorism as a reason to limit cash transactions to $1,000 for French citizens. Apparently the terrorist over there recently used cash. New laws goes into effect in fall. Foriegnors limited to $10,000 transactions. In euros of course.