If they were only carrying 30k they would have not had to declare anything. In my experience, about 99.9% of immigrants and refugees are aware of the 10k declaration. It is normally US citizens who are not up on the regs.

Bosnia is certainly not one's only choice for hiding money. There is a large industry of offshore banking. However, transfers leaving the country are reported to the Feds . I don't remember what the threshold amount is, but it's on the same order of magnitude as the $10K cash threshold. This is all of course only about the US, but other countries have similar requirements.

There used to be a scam where you could have your income wired to a semi-anonymous offshore account, and then use a debit/ATM card linked to that account to spend the money tax-free. The IRS has gone after those people, so that scam is basically gone.

10K is magic number in the US and a lot of flags go up in alot of areas when that threshold is met.

When one makes a 10K deposit at a local bank, that information is reported to the govt, even though the teller doesn't tell you that. In fact, all bankers are supposed to know where the money being deposted is coming from, and report any and all suspecious deposits, even the ones that are less than 10K.

I would like to be one of the the "unfortunate" individuals that carries such sums and makes such deposits, but I'm not, so my information is second hand. But I do know some people that are in cash intensive businesses (small business owners) and they have recieved extra scrutiny from their local banks for making large deposits.

Crossing borders with lots of cash may have drug war implicatations, but there are very sound economic reasons why governments don't want large sums of money going in and out of their economies.

Yes, the 10K is a trigger on lots of things. We bought a car last year and paid cash and the dealer told us they would have to make a report of the amount to the IRS. In our case, it didnt matter.

As to the story about the couple from Bosnia. I cant help but think these are the same federal authorities that sent, lemme see if I can remember the name, Mohammad Atta I think it was, a new visa a few months after he crashed a plane into the World Trade Center. Maybe they arent utilizing their time in the most beneficial way to the country, but rather in ways for calculated psychological/PR effect for self benefit. Just a thought.

You do not individually get to decide which laws you will or will not follow--at least not without facing the applicable penalty if caught. If we allowed each person to decide which laws they will and will not follow, there would be anarchy.

We have a system of government by representation in the U.S. If you don't like a law, contact your representative and work through the system to get it changed. If you are unable to get it changed because you are in the minority and there is no reason to change the law based on compelling factors that affect that minority, you will have to follow the law.

Don't follow the law because it is not "moral" or "right," in your opinion, then be prepared to pay the price society will levy. In this case, forfeiture of the money.

If you are not a citizen and don't agree with the law, don't visit the country that imposes such laws.

This is not just a U.S. issue, by the way. When I entered Cambodia last week, the customs declaration required me to declare whether I was carrying cash or negotiable instruments exceeding the value of US$10,000.00.

Each person has to do what he or she thinks is right. I would venture to guess that many people violate laws every day. You are right -- there is a risk in doing so. But we all have to do what we think is right for ourselves and use our own calculus as to risk/reward, and right/wrong.

I do not agree with a law that attempts to attach a US government interest to all of my property. That doesn't mean I'd violate the law as I might not want to take that chance. It isn't worth it to me.

But I would not compare Cambodia with the USA -- and if Cambodia does it, that might be a good reason to investigate it closely because it is probably not what the USA ought to be doing.

to follow up on some of the earlier posts:

there is a federal civil forfeiture statute on the books. The law which is referred to as having not passed supplements the existing law by creating a presumption. The existing law requires essentially only that the police prove by a preponderance (more likely than not) that the cash is from a crime or will be used in a crime. Its controversial because many view it as an end-around your various protections of civil liberties - ie a forfeiture proceeding is equivalent to a criminal proceeding but the accused has less protection.

I don't know if customs has the authority to search outbound or make you answer questions. However, a pitfall to be aware of is that if you consent to a search then the search is valid. If you don't want to comply, ask them "Do I have to (answer your questions/let you search me/etc)?". If they tell you that you have to, then you are not consenting. By not consenting, you preserve your right to have any "evidence" excluded from a trial against you if their search was unlawful in the first place. In contrast, simply refusing or lying is not a good course, and may constitute obstruction. Most likely, they won't give you a straight answer that you have to.

A long time ago (well, 5-7 years) a friend of mine was thinking of setting up in one of the Caribbean tax havens + Panama and travelled extensively via MIA to get there. He told me that U.S. Customs always checked pax on flights headed there.