Originally Posted by
Blogndog
The whole "structuring" thing is exactly the kind of nonsense I am talking about. First they set a limit, then they come up with a new "crime" that involves observing that limit. I had a U.S. Treasury official admit to me in a meeting that they don't want to get rid of the FBAR requirement specifically because it creates an additional "crime" they can add to a rap sheet in order to maximise the leverage they have to get someone to plea out, or better yet, rat out. He explicitly referred approvingly to how spitting on the side walk laws are used for this purpose, and not actually to prevent people from spitting on the sidewalk.
What "limit" are you consistently referring to? There is no limit on carrying currency, items of value, or negotiable instruments into or out of the country of which I am aware.
Are you perhaps referring to the requirement to "declare" possession of such items in amounts equal to or greater than $10,000?
And yes, it is a time-honored practice to use a myriad of laws to establish probable cause for "fishing expeditions" or obtain leverage such as expired license plates, objects hanging from the rear-view mirror, "unsafe" lane changes, using the US Mail for wire-fraud, "impeding the public on a sidewalk by standing on the sidewalk", and my personal favorite: "mopery with intent to creep."