Slickw

They wouldn't change their policies based on an inquiry by the NYT. They more than likely changed in large part because the IRS have been their clock cleaned by the Institute for Justice in various forfeiture lawsuits.

jamesb2147

Hey Slickw,

Is there anyplace we can read more about that? I'm always trying to learn.

PaulMSN

http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profi...t-forfeiture-4

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us...-to-seize.html

http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/12/in...s-suit-to-stop

http://www.cato.org/events/policing-...set-forfeiture

Slickw

www.ij.org and Google them for mainstream coverage of their cases.

I exchanged emails with one of their attorneys some time back and he told me he asked around and none of his peers who work forfeiture cases had heard of an MS-related seizure. And I only recall one person here saying they had their assets seized due to MS so the good news is it seems to be exceedingly rare.

But most innocent people caught up in these seizure cases never heard of it happening either until they wake up one day and get steamrolled by over-reaching local LE or Feds. With that in the back of my mind I kick in a few bucks to IJ a couple of times a year and IMO others engaged in this hobby should consider doing the same.

jamesb2147

I haven't had time to review the CATO link, but the others were ok. The New Yorker seems to have run the best (read: most in-depth) article so far on the topic.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

jamesb2147

That is excellent news and great legwork. Thanks to you and the attorney for asking around!!

I just didn't think "cleaned their clock" was the appropriate phraseology when, as far as I can tell, none of the cases that the IJ is handling have even gone to trial. The IRS CI team did take a deserved drumming in the press, but it only changed policy going forward, not retroactively, and it doesn't apply to local PD's (like the Tenaha one in the New Yorker; what if I were carrying $xK in GC's in my car?). Since the IJ's challenging all this on Constitutional grounds, it'll be interesting to watch how it plays out, though I doubt the Constitutional challenge will get them anywhere. Carole Hinder's case is currently scheduled for sometime in the middle of 2015, according to the Des Moines Register.

digitalpop

The mentality in this thread is incredibly two-sided. Can anyone provide a general forum consensus on MO deposits and SARs/structuring, or at least your personal rationale?

a) Deal with SARs and perhaps deal with potential bank/CU account shutdown. Deposit everything at one bank/CU, at least you're 100% not doing anything illegal.

b) Avoid SARs, lessen chance of potential bank/CU account shutdown. Deposit at multiple banks/CUs. Definitely illegal structuring, yes?

What's your choice and why?

Mountain Trader

Good recap.

Andy2

Every moderate sized law firm in the country has at least one, and some have several, lawyers who handle Structuring cases, and administrative government agencies spend millions on this subjective issue. If it was possible to easily summarize the rules, or for anyone to provide definitive guidance, that bureaucracy would never have come to exist. The thread has lots of useful information as well as plenty of wrong information. But that is just the way it is. The second you try to define something as definitive, someone will correctly post a link to guidance that contradicts it, even though that definitive answer would sometimes be correct. That is just the way this area of law is, and in all fairness the rules were written with no thought to a Manufactured Spend / Debit Card world that in complete fairness should not even exist.

3ZeroT

I understand the structuring laws are focused on evading reporting thresholds in currency/cash transactions. You are not using cash at any point in the process but rather electronically traceable debit/credit transfers.

The bank can still file a SAR for check/MO deposits but it can be for any amount deemed suspicious. Therefore with no obvious reporting threshold to avoid or 'structure' around, I just don't see a federal law being obviously broken. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. In any event if you were investigated, I doubt you would face prosecution once they see where the funds came from and what you were doing (always best to save all your receipts tracking the flow of funds if a 3 letter govt agency comes knocking).

hamokmonky

How exactly is depositing at multiple banks definitely illegal structuring? If that were true, it would be illegal to deposit any money into more than one account.... which would basically make it illegal to HAVE more than one account. Thats a rather silly statement. Maybe the way YOU deposit is suspicious structuring to reduce SARs, but I deposit to whatever banks happen to be nearest where I am at the time, and at any given week, that closest location may be 5 or 6 different banks.

Alcibiades

Since your intent is convenience and not to avoid anything, it is not illegal. But, like you say, it could be seen as suspicious along with lots of other stuff.

hamokmonky

That was exactly my point, in no way can you state that having multiple bank accounts to deposit money orders into is definitely illegal structuring.

digitalpop

You're totally right, depositing into multiple accounts out of convenience shouldn't be considered illegal structuring. But if you specifically do so to avoid SARs, then you may be toying with fire.

I suppose it all depends on proving your intent. If you have no obvious reason to have deposited at multiple banks as opposed to one, perhaps you'd be looking at trouble.

smoothmunkey

But playing armchair attorney is so much more fun and less expensive!