<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Steve M:
You know this to be an extreme exaggeration.
...
Separate from the mandatory reporting requirements, you *may* be subject to civil asset forfeiture if you have "too much" cash without a good reason (anywhere). I think the whole civil asset forfeiture system is out of control and should be reformed. There have been many cases (too many) of innocent people having their money seized because somebody thought it was "too much" to have. But this is a separate issue from the reporting requirements for importing and exporting currency. Unlike the civil asset forfeiture, you can have your money seized if you import or export more than $10,000 and fail to report it. Unlike civil asset forfeiture, there's no establishing after the fact that you had a good reason to have that much moeny - the failure to report it upon import/export in of itself is a violation.
</font>
Speaking of extreme exaggerations! This is simply not the case. There is no statute in the United States that can subject you to civil asset forfeiture for simply holding too much cash. This is malarkey!
There are, in fact, statutes that allow civil forfeitures IF the government can establish that the money came from illegal sources (money laundering, drug activity, bookmaking, prostitution rings, extortion, etc.) the government has the burden of proving this--but not beyond a reasonable doubt, since it is not a criminal case. Some people indeed lose in these cases when they are unable (or more likely unwilling) to give any cogent explanation as to where the $500,000 in cash in their attic came from. These people haven't lost their money because they "had too much cash," but because the government proved its case that the money came from illegal sources.
But a person who can prove where their money came from is not subject to civil forfeiture for "having too much cash." You can store as much cash as you want to under your mattress.
Your claims are simply not based in law or in fact.
Djlawman