$5G+ in Cash Can Have the Cops Chasing You

"Banks have minimum quotas of SARs they need to fill out and submit to the federal government. If they don’t file enough SARs, they can be fined. They can lose their banking charter. And yes, bank executives and directors can even be imprisoned for noncompliance. This is the nature of the financial system in the Land of the Free.
And chances are, your banker has filled one out on you—they submitted 1.6 MILLION SARs in 2013 alone. But now the Justice Department is saying that SARs aren’t enough. Now, whenever banks suspect something ‘suspicious’ is going on, they want them to pick up the phone and call the cops:
“[W]e encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem, who may be able to seize the funds, initiate an investigation, or take other proactive steps.”
So what exactly constitutes ‘suspicious activity’? Basically anything. According to the handbook for the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council, banks are required to file a SAR with respect to: “Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more…” sovereigngovernment.com

Your link is broken for me. I think this one will work: http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/justice-department-rolls-out-an-early-form-of-capital-controls-in-america-16640/

Interesting read, but I'm not sure about the headline. Nothing in the article was new, so what exactly is being rolled out?

Quote: rdw4potus

Your link is broken for me. I think this one will work: http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/justice-department-rolls-out-an-early-form-of-capital-controls-in-america-16640/ Interesting read, but I'm not sure about the headline. Nothing in the article was new, so what exactly is being rolled out?

Thanx for the help on the link.
First interesting point is the quota for institutions to file SAR's. What do those banks etc. do in scrupulously honest markets where there isn't much structuring or laundering?

Second is the new pressure to call the local police. Talk about profiling!

Quote: SanchoPanza

“[W]e encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem, who may be able to seize the funds, initiate an investigation, or take other proactive steps.”

WTF. The government wants the bank to alert law enforcement and let them know who is able to seize the funds that the customer just withdrew from HIS account from the bank. WTF!

Sounds to me more like a fantasy from a paranoia-based web site. Just who is "soverignman.com"? For one thing, they are a site that posts from Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile some "news" like:

Quote:

Earlier this week, a senior official from the Justice Department spoke to a group of bankers about the need for them to rat out their customers to the police.

No particular senior official and no particular group of bankers. It's the kind of web post that makes me highly suspicious that they aren't quite telling an accurate story.

Yeah, you're on a "sovereign citizen" website. I'd move along.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed.

Quote: aceofspades

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdyOVDgKsgA

Call local police? Why? They won't do anything
unless a crime has been committed. They
don't handle 'suspicious' bank withdrawals.

Cop: "Sir, you withdrew $6000 from your account. Why?"

You: "Is it crime to withdraw my money from my bank?"

Cop: "Why did you withdraw it"?

You: How about it's none of your business.

The whole thing is stupid.

Quote: EvenBob

Call local police? Why? They won't do anything
unless a crime has been committed. They
don't handle 'suspicious' bank withdrawals.

Cop: "Sir, you withdrew $6000 from your account. Why?"

You: "Is it crime to withdraw my money from my bank?"

Cop: "Why did you withdraw it"?

You: How about it's none of your business.

The whole thing is stupid.

Having cash is now viewed as evidence of wrongdoing in and of itself — any drug dog worth it's weight in Scooby-snacks can alert to the cocaine on American cash.

Most Americans are probably unaware of the recent legislation and regulations tightening to an extreme extent bank procedures and stripping many of the privacy protections we have been taking for granted for decades. Even to the point where some of the sketchier details are now becoming available to us riff-raff. Laundering and terrorism are frequently cited, but it has to be noted that those records are available to law enforcement, federal, state and local, too.

It was difficult to find the precise segments dealing with issuing currency, but the strictures involved with accepting currency would be applicable:

"FinCEN takes the position that when a customer purchases a monetary instrument between $3,000 and $10,000 using currency that the customer first deposits into the customer’s account, the transaction is still subject to the recordkeeping requirements of §103.29. This is true whether the transaction is conducted in this manner as required by a financial institution’s established policy, or at the request of the customer. FinCEN anticipates that, in selling monetary instruments to deposit account holders, a financial institution will already maintain most of the information required by §103.29 in the normal course of its business, and therefore the requirement to fully comply with the regulation should not be overly burdensome.

Financial institutions are reminded that records required to be kept pursuant to §103.29 must be retained for five years and be made available upon request to FinCEN and any agency exercising delegated authority as set forth 31 C.F.R. 103.56.
Accordingly, financial institutions should implement procedures to enable the required records to be available upon request.

Multiple purchases of the same or different types of monetary instruments on the same business day totaling between $3,000 and $10,000 must be treated as one purchase, if the financial institution has knowledge that the purchases have occurred. Frequent and/or sequential purchases of monetary instruments may be indicative of money laundering. Therefore, financial institutions should ensure appropriate procedures are in place to control the risk that can accompany contemporaneous purchases of monetary instruments, including transactions designed to evade BSA requirements, to determine whether the circumstances warrant the filing of a suspicious activity report." Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Other instructions include this one, also from FinCen:

"U.S. financial institutions are reminded of their obligations to comply with the general due diligence obligations under 31 CFR§1010.610(a). As required under 31CFR § 1010.610(a), covered financial institutions should ensure that their due diligence programs, which address correspondent accounts maintained for foreign financial institutions, include appropriate, specific, risk-based, and, where necessary, enhanced policies, procedures, and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and report known or suspected money laundering activity conducted through or involving any correspondent account established, maintained, administered, or managed in the United States.

Additionally, as required under 31 CFR §§1020.320, 1021.320, 1022.320, 1023.320, 1024.320, 1025.320, and 1026.320, if a financial institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that a transaction involves funds derived from illegal activity or that a customer has otherwise engaged in activities indicative of money laundering, terrorist financing, or other violation of federal law or regulation, the financial institution shall then file a Suspicious Activity Report."

has your account been hacked?

anyway, the more the Feds insist on more and more SARS [if true] the more the whole thing becomes useless. It becomes too hard to discover the signal in all the noise.