[caymanjim]

Is this really that surprising? Having more than roughly $10,000 cash in the US is nearly illegal, in that you're guilty until proven innocent and the police can just take it until you prove that it was obtained legally. You may not be charged with a crime, but you're still going to lose the money. The courts are slowly inching away from this unconstitutional insanity, but a duffel bag of cash is still going to end up turning into a new Hummer for whatever local police squad finds it.

[heelix]

Hah. So years back, I was going to buy a car. Went to the bank and they wanted (what I considered to be) a ridiculous service fee for a cashiers check. Fine... I'll take cash from my account! Ah, need a couple days to do that sort of thing... I, was miffed and stubborn as hell... so I did just that. Came back, got fingerprinted, and picked up my pile of cash to go buy the two year old 996.

The dealership, when time came to close, absolutely freaked when I pulled out the cash. Another set of IRS forms... and sorted it after several phone calls.

[perl4ever]

A cashier's check costs $1 in my experience...

[heelix]

TCF wanted $8 or so. I am not a clever man.

[perl4ever]

It may be more than $1. I feel like I was surprised to only pay $1 not long ago, but I may be remembering getting a money order.

[Razengan]

...How is this not practically tyranny?

People here show concern over digital privacy and net neutrality etcetera but that's just tightening the noose, because apparently they've already put one on the bare basics.

[gist]

> Having more than roughly $10,000 cash in the US is nearly illegal

Where are you getting that from? [1] There is nothing even close to being illegal to possess in the US any amount of cash. There are laws to prevent illegal activity and against structuring (attempting to deposit below some limit to avoid disclosure).

Now to what appears to be your point having $100,000 in cash in open display in your car when you are stopped by the police will definitely raise suspicions. But then again so will many other things that are not illegal but might raise suspicions depending on the context of where they appear. (Walk into a bank with a toy pistol vs. walk around your friends backyard with a toy pistol).

[1] And what is 'nearly illegal' is that like 'nearly pregnant' (the classical example actually 'pregnant' or 'not').

[throwaway2048]

Look into civil forfeiture laws, cops will seize that amount of money if you have it, and it can be almost impossible to get it back.

[gist]

Very generally you would need to be a suspect in a crime which is completely separate from having cash and not being a suspect.

[refurb]

I get your point, but currently just the possession of a large quantity of cash is enough to be suspected of a crime.

“Only criminals carry large quantities of cash”.

[astrange]

It's pretty easy to become a suspect for walking while black, smelling like marijuana, resisting arrest, driving suspiciously, having a dog respond to you…

[perl4ever]

Has anyone ever just withdrawn cash from their bank account that was obviously from a legitimate source and had it seized by police and not been able to get it back?

Because the way people talk about civil forfeiture is as though this happens all the time, but ostensibly there's not supposed to be a problem if the cash is traceable.

Stories about civil forfeiture abuses that I've read don't delve into whether the victim actually was able to prove the source of the money in a normal way.

[scott_s]

I think the civil forfeiture cases involve what sounds like a contradiction: people who are relatively poor with a large sum of cash.

The problem is that this cash is essentially their entire savings. Which means their ability to fight the forfeiture is limited, and the arresting police can infer that. Rich people tend not to need to have even that amount of cash: they can take advantage of the normal banking system to transfer money. And if they were stopped, it's easy to infer that someone is at least rich enough to quickly hire good lawyers to fight the seizure.

However, with that said, I think caymanjim was being intentionally unspecific to prove a point. It's not against the written laws to have large sums of cash. But if such cash represents most of your wealth, and you're transporting it across certain areas, you're at the mercy of various law enforcement who may overstep their actual authority.

[briandear]

A tangent, but why can’t a “poor” person with $10,000 use banks? I am unaware of any income requirement to open a bank account. In many states, even illegal aliens can’t open bank accounts. I’m not sure I understand why the poor can’t use banks. I was poor once with credit in the low 500s and I’ve always had bank accounts.

[scott_s]

They can. Why they are less likely to is, I believe, an area of active study. A 2017 study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation cites the two main reasons as trust and fees (page 4): https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2017/2017execsumm.pdf

[astrange]

Most physical banks charge you fees for having a checking account, fees for overdrafting, etc. If you don't pay one of those you can be banned from banking by Chexsystems.

[throwaway2048]

Why does not using a bank mean your money is fine to steal from you?

[perl4ever]

"The problem is that this cash is essentially their entire savings. Which means their ability to fight the forfeiture is limited"

You're implying that people with reasonable documentation for the source of their cash can't just fill out some forms, but need to hire lawyers or something. Have you seen news articles or other sources describing such a situation?

[scott_s]

I think the problem is that poor people transferring money typically don't have such documentation on them. (As was the case in the situations I just googled, which are easy to find. For example: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/civil-forfeiture-charl...) Most such seizures are also tied up with "suspicion" of drug trafficking, which means it's no longer a matter of proving the money is yours. You must now prove the money is not involved in your supposed drug trafficking.

[caymanjim]

In a free country you shouldn't have to prove you didn't commit a crime. The burden is on the state to prove you did.