Posted on 03/31/2015 3:50:21 PM PDT by jazusamo
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has crafted a new policy that would allow government officials to seize bank accounts involved in financial structuring schemes prior to filing criminal charges against the individuals who own those accounts.
The new policy stems from the Justice Department’s ongoing review of its asset forfeiture program. The policy is aimed at preventing criminals from making a series of currency transactions under a certain monetary threshold in order to evade reporting the transaction to the authorities, according to a department statement.
Those types of transactions typically lead to “the most serious illegal banking transactions” and occur “in connection with other criminal activity,” the statement read.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
150 days = just after the money can do no harm in the 2016 election.
Would using a can of white paint be racis’ ?
Wasn’t there an announcement just last month that they would no longer be freezing accounts for suspicion of “structuring” if there was no other evidence of criminal activity?
I guess we should have known that was too good to be true. Turns out, they just stopped freezing the accounts because they intend to SEIZE the accounts instead.
> Banks need to go down.
I agree, provisionally — banks should not get special treatment, for good or ill. Most ‘regulations’ [of banks] are legally unsound and ought to be repealed. (Most of the cited justification for regulation is actually covered under common law [e.g. fraud], and even normal criminal law [e.g. theft]).
Stripping them of their special protections would allow honest interactions; stripping the burdensome regulations would allow real market-forces to work on the banks.
> Are credit Unions exempt?
I don’t know.
I totally agree.
In fact, using terms like “some concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR’s thug justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn.
“In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit [emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”—Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR’s activist justices had watered the 10th Amendment down to a wives’ tale imo.
I’m with Jerry Doyle -—> Banker Gangsters -—— the Fed included.
You are only limited by what you supermarket carries and you imagination.
Kool...... thnx
Yes — But I’m saying even Gangsters may be punished under “normal laws”, we don’t NEED special laws [like RICO] to punish them for their wrongdoing.
there needs to be courts and stuff involved before government agencies take things and money away from people
Yup, and depends on their definition of ‘criminal’. That could be any TEA party members.
Both of you couldn't be more correct. The Injustice Dept is overstepping their constitutional authority in a big way on this.
Good post!
Not since they are made out of plastic... You might just forget where you put them in a few years, and might want to use a metal detector to find them (which doesn't work on plastic)... Back to your basic Mason jar... That particular lesson cost me about $1200.00
10,000 dollars, 5,000 dollars - those figures are for the rubes.
The computer programs they're using to monitor this stuff is looking for "out of the ordinary" stuff in amounts that make it worth their while.
For example, if you did 1,000 - 2,000 dollar deposits over a period of weeks, in a totally new pattern for you, totally 15-20K, that would make the computer perk up its ears.
To be fair, we signed over our real estate & houses first, without a whimper (property taxes).
I guess they figured we wouldn't complain about this, "if it catches just ONE dirty money-launderer!"
Not that is matters anyhow (since it has not been followed for over 100 years), but there’s a few Amendments, somewhere in there, that specifically deny such tyranny.
Say, what’s the word from the GOP and party leadership about such a blatant, in-your-face police state tactic??
*crickets*
Regarding GOP you would think that since the RINO-controlled House has read the Constitution out loud at the beginnings of the last several legislative sessions that the GOP would be aware of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
But I’m not betting any money on it.
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.