- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
IRS seizes business' bank account for suspected crime
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:43 pm
LINK
quote:
After years of being a law-abiding business, the government suddenly decides to seize your bank account. Sadly, this is what happened to Carole Hinders' restaurant when the federal government seized her bank account worth $33,000. Now, she's filing a lawsuit in federal court.
quote:
Civil forfeiture, IJ says, is a procedure that allows the federal government to seize property based on the suspicion of a crime. According to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, financial institutions are required by law to report any transactions made exceeding $10,000 or any transactions that might be a result of criminal activity.
This post was edited on 10/28/14 at 9:44 pm
11
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:45 pm to Revelator
Did you take this from the OT circa 3 days ago?
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:53 pm to JG77056
quote:
Did you take this from the OT circa 3 days ago?
This article is from yesterday so I guess it's not fresh enough for you?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 5:10 am to JG77056
OT Police.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:09 am to Revelator
1. For a long te I've believed these seizure laws to be ridiculous. The U.S. goverent should not be able to deprive persons of property without due process.
2. If we dont have a choice and have to keep them, they ought to be adjusted for inflation. $10,000 in the early 70s is different than that amount today.
2. If we dont have a choice and have to keep them, they ought to be adjusted for inflation. $10,000 in the early 70s is different than that amount today.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:57 am to Revelator
quote:
based on the suspicion of a crime
And some people, Jeauxbleaux and the like, think more government is the answer to all our problems.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 7:55 am to Revelator
quote:
According to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, financial institutions are required by law to report any transactions made exceeding $10,000 or any transactions that might be a result of criminal activity.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:00 am to Revelator
quote:OBAMA!
. According to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970,
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:06 am to SpidermanTUba
No, not Obama, but it was passed by both houses of Congress that were at the time controlled by Democrats.
Richard Nixon did sign it, but Dems were responsible for it.
Richard Nixon did sign it, but Dems were responsible for it.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:07 am to Revelator
I need someone smarter than I to explain to me how civil forfeiture is constitutional when the 5th Amendment unambiguously says that the federal government cannot deprive a citizen of property without due process and the 14th amendment says the states cannot deprive a citizen of property without due process.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:10 am to Revelator
Cash only restaurant. Deposits just under 10k and the owner even admits she was intentionally keeping the deposits under 10k to prevent reporting.
Suckas!
Suckas!
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:15 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Deposits just under 10k and the owner even admits she was intentionally keeping the deposits under 10k to prevent reporting.
So, you're saying that this is illegal?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:17 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Cash only restaurant. Deposits just under 10k and the owner even admits she was intentionally keeping the deposits under 10k to prevent reporting.
quote:See any problem here, Spidey?
IRS seizes business' bank account
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:24 am to Revelator
[link=(fairtax.org)]fairtax.org[/link]
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:31 am to Revelator
This is another thing the federal government should not be allowed to do without due process.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 8:33 am
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:47 am to Homesick Tiger
Yep.
There's only two reasons people run cash-only restaurants these days - 1) to avoid paying taxes on legal income 2) as a front operation to launder illegal income.
There's only two reasons people run cash-only restaurants these days - 1) to avoid paying taxes on legal income 2) as a front operation to launder illegal income.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 8:56 am
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:53 am to antibarner
quote:the dems made Nixon sign it? Who made the republican controlled house senate and white house do nothing to repeal it earlier last decade? Obama?
Richard Nixon did sign it, but Dems were responsible for it
Posted on 10/29/14 at 8:58 am to antibarner
quote:
No, not Obama, but it was passed by both houses of Congress that were at the time controlled by Democrats. Richard Nixon did sign it, but Dems were responsible for it.
The mandatory reporting for $10k+ cash deposits is from the Patriot Act.
Bush's fault.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 9:00 am to udtiger
quote:
The mandatory reporting for $10k+ cash deposits is from the Patriot Act.
Are you sure?
I seem to remember Ollie North testifying about deposits that were denominated in 9's.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 9:03 am to SpidermanTUba
there are different laws that all come back to that 10k limit. i think initially it was part of legislation targeting organized crime (laundering)
this isn't a DEM or a REP issue. this is a government issue. anyone who supports these laws hates freedom and believes in a police state.
this isn't a DEM or a REP issue. this is a government issue. anyone who supports these laws hates freedom and believes in a police state.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News