Bitcoin Forum

This is some scary shit!

This is why Bitcoin and crypto in general has a big future!!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-26/they-just-want-money-how-irs-can-seize-accounts-suspicion-alone

scary for USA people ... not for the rest of the world ;)

If you look at what kind of laws are being passed all over the world you will see that it is starting to happen everywhere now. The writing is on the wall.

wow!  :o

Ahhh if only the US did not have a massive reach and impose its law on the rest of the world. Sorry mate but if the USA wants to fuck someone over in another country they'll usually find a way.

I find it extremely disturbing that Google and many other giant corps still pay tinniest tax (some even 1% of income) yet ordinary ppl got their live saving taken away.

Is this what we called Democracy?

Corporate income tax has nothing to do with civil forfeiture actions, and neither have anything to do with democracy.

many law agencies do it all the time. not just IRS. but police departments too.

its called 'policing for profit', laws need to change so that people are innocent until proven guilty, as laws like the forfeiture laws are the extreme opposite of innocent till proven guilty.

Actually they are all tied together!!

I am pretty sure @ this point it is too late. As the governments sink deeper into debt, this kind of behavior will become the norm and it will be up to every individual to protect themselves.

Ask the people in Cyprus if they agree.

Well, this is normal government behavior. It's very interesting, because if anybody else did such things, it would be called theft/crime/stealing/robbery. Isn't it great to call yourself a government, then you just call it civil forfeiture.

I can imagine those people being affected by all of this really embraze their motherland after the fact, and thank the government for keeping them safe, after all, they could've been criminals, so it's very important they need to be protected from themselves!

And when an official sees a 'pattern', of course he must be right. Officials never do wrong!

/sarcasm

That is the IRS for ya.
Always intervening and trying to milk the country out of countless $.

Ever since the Washington Post ran an article about this practice a few weeks ago, it has gotten a lot more attention by the MSM. I would not be surprised if many local elections would have this topic discussed as it is more of a local issue then a national one (although the federal government can also seize assets as discussed in the article in the OP - although I think local governments do this much more then the federal government).

One feature of democracy is that if the citizens do not like the law, they can get the law changed by voting in politicians who would be willing to get the law changed

every where else u just get a drone visit  :D

Isn't it quite normal for the government to seize money in a bank account that's been inactive for x years as well, and what about seizing properties? I remember reading something about that as well..

Seizing cash is nothing new in the U.S...full of crooks.
CORRUPTION at its finest.

I think I've seen several articles about this happening in Australia recently.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/australia-seizes-360m-from-dormant-bank-accounts-and-all-50-u-s-states-are-doing-this-too

Question for anyone familiar with this law.

Can they seize asset based on....suspicion?

People gotta realize that there is no real incentive for government employees to be accurate or good at their jobs.  They are actually rewarded for NOT doing their jobs (as 'their jobs' are commonly understood) as long as it is furthering an agenda, and that agenda is often hidden.  It's quickly becomming a much bigger problem in the U.S. recently.

Very recently I did some work on my place and gave my state's DEQ an excuse to fuck with me by 'disturbing' more than an acre of land.  Having some eco-snitch make an anonymous phone call to gave this totally bitchy DEQ cunt what she claimed to be jurisdiction over my project (before a zoning change which would have made it somewhat more appropriate.)  I was unaware of these rules and had designed my project (in conjunction with the state's department of forestry) to create zero sediment discharge.

This lady claimed that she believed that my project could increase the sediment load in the nearby river by 10%.  The river flows more than 6,000,000 gallons per minute when it is flooding and is dark brown with sediment and carrying full sized logs with their root wads at that stage.  This week it rained a lot for the first time and some water exited my work area.  It was crystal clear as I expected.

So, this bureaucrat was totally and completely wrong (through incompetence or malice or both) but it gave the DEQ an excuse to shaft me for $1600.  The bitchy cunt also tried to steer me to her friend's engineering firm to do the extensive paperwork which would have cost me another $10k, but I wasn't falling for it.  I did my own engineering documents and proposed my 'best management practices' to 'mitigate the risks' as do nothing.  That worked, but I am still out $1600.

The key to success here is to fuck only a small and unrepresentative sample of people.  The despicable 'greenies' living in their stack-n-pack condos in the cities are not going to be impacted by the extortion that the DEQ slammed me with, and they can feel all self-righteous that they are 'saving the earth' by supporting the DEQ.  Hopefully these bureaucrats and their 'NGO' minions/overloards will get get greedy and fuck to many people and there will be a backlash which will collapse their corrupt scams.

FWIW, to get even I'm now planning to clear-cut the shit out of all of my land even though I don't really need the money.  I'm actually something of an environmentalist myself and sacrifice about $100k in value to shade the river with trees in a buffer zone, but I've grown up around clearcuts and understand the ecological factors.  Most people don't seem to be able to conceptualize the reality that trees grow back.  As for leaving a buffer zone to protect the river, I feel it's important because I've spent 40 years running up and down the river and observing things.  The innumerate eco-fuckers and their self-serving pseudo-science does not impact my analysis at all (other than pissing me off.)

---

Anyway, I was aware of this $10k problem already.  I very deliberately did some Bitcoin cash-out transactions in excess of $10k so I could not be accused of 'structuring' (although, ironically, this very action could also be considered 'structuring'...if they wish to defend the argument in court.)

Yep it is a slippery slope
If it occurs in one place and is left unabated governments will then try to push it in their own district etc.
Always a fight against them.

Because is am in the process of trying to register a Money Service Business (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=826219.0) in Canada, specifically designed to avoid reporting requirements, I found this topic concerning enough to look into it a little more.

Apparently, Structuring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring) is not illegal in Canada, and presumably many other countries. (That Wikipedia page mentions "parceling" is illegal in Australia). While browsing the web, I came across this damning quote:
- “Structuring”: who can get away with it, and who can’t (http://overlawyered.com/2012/04/structuring-who-can-get-away-with-it-and-who-cant/)

So the US had a statute where ignorance of the law was actually a strong defense, and by decree: declared that ignorance of the law is no longer a defense. In Canada, I get the impression that structuring is not illegal, only suspicious. That is: if a reporting entity suspects structuring, they need only report all of the small transaction as one large one.

Sometimes there are legitimate business reasons for structuring. When I worked retail, I believe the store had a policy of keeping less than $10,000 in cash on hand. The purpose was to deter theft. Each cash register is supposed to have less then $250 (dropped in $100 increments (I hope this information is not too confidential)). During busy times, they would be making several deposits under $10,000 per day.

It can be argued that working and spending less than you earn (most people's paychecks will be less than $10,000) is also structuring. The Statue on structuring does not appear to be limited to cash transactions.

We have to pay for those drones somehow.  Janet's starting to run low on ink.

Eurozone have law since december 2013 to do this ... legally.

Eurozone have from decade, law to block and retrieve ticket (high speed by automated camera) from the bank account (cost of this for the client = 87 euros) without inform citizen from this if it is in vacancy (like 2 months).

Bitcoin ... can free people.
And that what it can append in short time, now.

The federal govt doesn't pay for stuff with taxes.  They pay for stuff with debt which can be conjured up at will.  Taxes at the federal level are mostly just a means of implementing social policy.  Specifically, re-distribution of wealth.

Public finance at the state and local levels are a whole different ballgame because these entities don't have a Federal Reserve.  They've got a poor second-cousin in raising bonds and such, but these are much less powerful since there is a higher expectation that they'll need to be paid back.  Nobody who is clued in has any expectation that the the Federal debt will be re-paid.

(My read of course.)

It seems cryptocurrency has arrived just at the right time!! The timing could not be better!

Well the main problem is that most of the population either: a) doesn't care; b) is ignorant and not aware.
Crypto is the way forward. These stories become scarier and scarier.

time overtake the old stuff.
Arthur C. Clarke.

 ;D

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/arthur_c_clarke.html

If you make multiple deposits in one day, each under $10,000 but all with the same bank then a CTR should be filed by the bank (currency transaction report - what the 'victim' was suspected in avoiding).

It would be possible that the victim was suspected of depositing under $10,000 at multiple banks or was holding amounts in excess of $10,000 and then depositing the difference on following banking days.

For any month other than December, the deposits would be less than $10,000/day. AFAIK, the farmer mentioned was only accused of limiting deposits to under $10,000 (to avoid paper-work), not doing anything silly with multiple branches or consecutive bank days.

You are correct about penalties for structuring, but a reader of this thread, unless they remembered your opening sentence above, might think that structuring applies to retail individuals.  It does not, it applies only to banks and other such financial institutions and the people that run them.  So if you are a US bank teller and fail to report on your customers, or even discuss this rule with your customers, you can run afoul of structuring laws.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act#Sanctions)   But customers don't have any liability other than they must report all transactions greater than 10K overseas, as I am painfully aware, every year.

Good luck with your business.  Moving money these days is so tough, I think it hurts commerce.

It is pretty scary that the government can just seize your money like this which could cause a world of issues for the owners.

Reporting requirements apply to financial institutions, while "structuring" applies to customers. As I understand it, "Structuring" is the act of making deposits designed to avoid reporting requirements. BTW the "paperwork" claim was mentioned here (http://overlawyered.com/2012/04/update-baltimore-city-paper-on-south-mountain-creamery-case/). It appears I may have miss-read it:
I interpreted that to mean the bank wanted him to file a form explaining where the money came from (since disclosing a FinCEN filing is largely illegal (I am more familiar with the Canadian rules: only illegal* if it is likely to impede an investigation).)

I don't recall going into the specific penalties.

*I am not a lawyer. I found something in one of the laws or regulations that may make it illegal to disclose anyway (something to do with privacy Act exemptions), but did not have time to thoroughly parse it. (Should have noted the section in question :P )

at the end of the day i never know if keeping most of my wealth in btc is actually safer or less safe than fiat/bank. the govt is a pretty scary entity.

The way Google and other giants to pay tax is permitted by the laws in many countries. You have to change law to prevent that.

The following headline is media extremisim, but the quoted article says you are wrong about structuring:
IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits less than $10,000 at a time (http://theweek.com/article/index/270692/speedreads)That having been said, to be clear, I saw phillipsjk's on topic post that responded to the same post above just a few posts back, but it looked difficult to quote with a follow-up response without potentially taking something out of context.

I know a man that was a victim of the IRS. I think the story is he wrote the bank account number wrong. His entire retirement money gone.

It is not a problem to disclose to a customer that you are filing a CTR (currency transaction report) or a similar form for amounts greater then $3,000 but less then $10,000 (that is also required to be filed) as it is very clear cut that this needs to be submitted to the government as the criteria is only that transaction amounts exceed certain amounts.

It is not okay to disclose that a SAR (suspicious activity report) will be filed. This is filed when (I bet you can't guess) a bank sees some kind of suspicious activity from one of it's customers. Examples of why a SAR would be submitted is when a bank thinks that a customer is trying to structure their deposits so they do not transact in amounts greater then $10,000 in a single day, or that a customer is trying to use questionable identification documents to open an account.

Why should IRS are the only organization to have this kind of authority. Why cant we, the bitcoin community make our own lawsuit to fight against government.

Yep, crypto is gonna change the way things are done for sure! The times are changin!

Because we don't rob people by force.

Every bitcoin address is going to be the equivalent or should i say better than swiss bank account

Pretty much, plus you got all these anon crypto like Darkcoin and all that! I think this cartoon is quite appropriate!

http://razorsforex.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-i-like-darkcoin-and-anonymous.html

https://i.imgur.com/0O8CpiL.jpg

Thanks is seems that you are right, on occasion the US Feds will target individuals using 'structuring' claims, even if the individuals are not drug dealers. 

Actually, the process for overcoming the IRS is method for living. In other words, how many people work for the IRS, or support family and friends using IRS pay? And what about the Congress who won't make themselves knowledgeable enough to show us that the IRS is a company just like any other company?

While most of us don't rob people by force, we DO work within the system, many leaders of which DO rob people by force. Our jobs use funds we receive as pay from them, and we support their activity of robbing people, not by force, but by sneaky "theft." And we do it out of ignorance.

How do we know that we are ignorant? The United sates has a total land and water area of about 9,826,630 - http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml. Yet, we allow ourselves to be crammed into big cities that use only a miniscule fraction of the land area. And we tell ourselves that we have to do it for a job. And the job supports all kinds of corporation "crooks and thieves" who rob us just enough so that we can't get out of the big cities and enjoy our lives. Rather, we are forced to stay and play their game... by our ignorance.

:)

I bet they been doing it illegally from the start but this just became official now that's really scary to even began with. :-[

Other law enforcement agencies have similar authority. Also the IRS does not simply take the money, they get a court order to have the court garnish money on the IRS's behalf. This is allowed as per statues.

A lawsuit is not a good approach to this problem. A more efficient way in getting this ability changed would be to vote for political leaders who would be willing to get these statues (laws) changed.

Not when the ones who refuse to allow economic liberty count the votes.

This type of taking is strongly opposed by the Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org), which is why I support them with my donations.

Votes are counted in an impartial way that allows for whoever has the most votes to win an election.

To say/imply that someone would not win an election despite receiving the most votes only because of their views is just crazy

Good luck with that one! LOL!

Well I would say that what the IRS is doing is not illegal. It is following the law, which gives them the authority to seize assets like this. So a lawsuit would do no good as no tort has been done and no crime has been committed. If you want to stop the IRS from being able to do this then the law needs to be changed

In a utopia, yes. In the dystopia we live in, no.

I would say that many people would need to be elected to get these kinds of laws changed but it is still possible.

Ever since the washington post published their article about how prevalent this is on a local level the general public has make it known that this is not a popular thing for the government to take money from (possible criminals) so it is very well possible that this kind of practice could get discontinued with the current politicians in office

The current politicians in office benefit from civil forfeiture and other forms of "legalized" theft and will never suffer one iota. Why would they act against their own interests? The general public has zero effect with the soapbox & Stalinist counted ballot box, the jury box is compromised and/or circumvented, and the ammo box is trumped by the drone & nuclear weapon box, if there isn't mutiny in support of our side, liberty.

I call Bullshit.
Show me this laws

Local politicians do benefit from asset seizure however they are also the easiest to remove from office and are the ones who must listen to the voices of local voters the most as they have very limited re-election budgets. The local equivalent of the MSM has incentives to report what is important to voters/the public and has much more influence as to what voters can hear then what the budget of most local politicians can bear.

If local politicians cannot get the laws changed, they can likely at the very least get the practice to stop

If you think elections/politicians will change anything I honestly don't know what to tell ya!

Oh, they change stuff, but for the worse of humankind intentionally, and rarely & by accident, for the better.

The change is quite random. It main benefits very few people.