Be Careful with U.S. Customs -- A Cautionary Tale--Part 2

[valhalla360]

If you transfer large amounts of cash thru non-standard methods..expect to have the govt question you.

You can question if it's right or wrong but expect a hard time. These are not new rules and they aren't USA specific...now if they documented that it was legitimate...the govt should return the money in a timely manner.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If you transfer large amounts of cash thru non-standard methods..expect to have the govt question you.

You can question if it's right or wrong but expect a hard time. These are not new rules and they aren't USA specific...now if they documented that it was legitimate...the govt should return the money in a timely manner.

First of all, there is a lot of daylight between "the government questions you", and having the money seized and held for a year while you struggle with them.


Second, what the heck is suspicious or "non-standard", about an old guy with an inheritance, taking out a cashier's check with a respectable commercial bank, and mailing it to another old guy? No cash was ever involved, nothing slightly suspicious in any of this to any normal mind. There is not the slightest indication of money laundering or terrorism. You have to have really drunk the Kool-aid, of hysterical fear of evil money launderers, to think that there is anything even slightly OK in this story.





One of my other hobbies is history, and I've done a lot of study of the history of the Russian Revolution and of the Soviet Union up through WWII. The most chilling thing I ever read about that dark period of the 1930's, was not how officers of the NKVD would drag people out of their apartments to be shot in the back of the head in the basement of the Lyubianka or in the woods somewhere, for no reason other than that they had made a joke at work about Stalin or possessed too nice a fur coat (he couldn't have come by it honestly). It was that the almost universal reaction, of the neighbors of these people, who very often were next, documented a million times, that "If they are arresting him; he must be guilty of something; it's OK." No! It doesn't work like that! It's not OK! Think for yourself, and don't be a tool of this!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

First of all, there is a lot of daylight between "the government questions you", and having the money seized and held for a year while you struggle with them.
If you read my comment, if they provided clear evidence that it was legitimate, I agree, holding it for a year is not reasonable...but holding the money while they determine if it's legitimate is the only reasonable way...once the money is clear of the border, it's near impossible to get it back if there was something illegitimate going on. If you go thru normal processes, there are checks built into the system.

Second, what the heck is suspicious or "non-standard", about an old guy with an inheritance, taking out a cashier's check with a respectable commercial bank, and mailing it to another old guy? No cash was ever involved, nothing slightly suspicious in any of this to any normal mind. There is not the slightest indication of money laundering or terrorism. You have to have really drunk the Kool-aid, of hysterical fear of evil money launderers, to think that there is anything even slightly OK in this story.

If it's an inheritance or they got bad advice from the bank...customs and boarder protection has no idea about that back story, so this is irrelevant. The customs guys found the documents with no back story. Giving special consideration because it's an "old guy" or an "inheritance" is a great way to teach those who are doing something illegitimate is they will quickly learn to use an "old guy" as a mule or claim it's an "inheritance" because it doesn't get scrutinized as well.

PS: Funny how you imply paranoia (drink the kool-aid) but then relate it to the "red menace" coming to America as if that's not paranoia.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If it's an inheritance or they got bad advice from the bank.... . .

Why was it bad advice from the bank exactly? It's a perfectly legal way to transfer money. Reporting isn't even required. What in heaven's name is suspicious about mailing a cashier's check, purchased NOT with cash, drawn on a reputable commercial bank, being sent through the mail?

[denverd0n]

The folks in the U.S. need to contact their Representative. They know how to grease the skids on things like this.


I understand CBP holding the money. After all, they did not follow the requisite procedures. It does, however, seem way beyond absurd that it would take more than a year to resolve something like this.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

. . . I understand CBP holding the money. After all, they did not follow the requisite procedures.., . ..

You missed the bit about how no reporting is required to mail a check which is addressed to a particular person and not endorsed to make it negotiable.


There were no "requisite procedures" to follow -- it was perfectly legal just as they did it. You can read the instructions for FinCen Form 105 here: https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default...in105_cmir.pdf




I would agree with you completely if some reporting obligation had been violated (including the comment that it shouldn't take a year to sort it out).

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Why was it bad advice from the bank exactly? It's a perfectly legal way to transfer money.

Obviously you already understand this, and are sort of playing "devil's advocate," but for those who might be sincerely confused...


It is perfectly legal for a Canadian to mail any amount of money he or she wants, any where they want. It is NOT, however, perfectly legal for a person in the United States to receive amounts greater than $10k, through the mail, without proper paperwork being filed first. That's the Catch-22. Banks in Canada ought to be aware of that, though I myself wouldn't have asked the Canadian bank; I would have had the U.S. relatives check with the American bank that I was sending the money to.


That said, it is still completely unreasonable that this is taking so very long to get resolved.

[30yearslater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Why was it bad advice from the bank exactly? It's a perfectly legal way to transfer money. Reporting isn't even required. What in heaven's name is suspicious about mailing a cashier's check, purchased NOT with cash, drawn on a reputable commercial bank, being sent through the mail?

Sorry you are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. No I'm not sorry at all for you being wrong. Yes it does indeed trigger suspicion at the border as any drug courier or CBP agent can attest. As to part two of your assertion it will be a lovely day when you take any financial instrument over 10,000 to deposit. Such as a building loan draw. Repeated deposits of large sums also raises the same suspicion. You tout your legal eagle status which means bupkiss since there is every type of lawyer from tax law to divorce to ambulance chaser to $hit house lawyer so simply stating one is a lawyer is irrelevant to this discussion. Ergo I am much more likely to drink Kool Aid from the Gubmint than from some internet expert.

[bill352]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It was that the almost universal reaction, of the neighbors of these people, who very often were next, documented a million times, that "If they are arresting him; he must be guilty of something; it's OK."

And how many posts in this thread are saying exactly that?


Stop it, Dockhead - you're scarin' me here.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You missed the bit about how no reporting is required to mail a check which is addressed to a particular person and not endorsed to make it negotiable.

But what was sent was not "just" a check. It was a bank draft. Yes, that's a type of check, but the Canadian bank itself balked at cancelling the drafts, because they are just like cash -- which would clearly imply that they ARE negotiable.


(Never mind that the article never says anything about this being a check to a particular person, that was not endorsed.)


In reality, given the little information available in the press, we cannot be absolutely certain if what was sent would require pre-approval or not. Obviously the CBP believed that it did require pre-approval, which had not been provided.


In any case, the family in the U.S. needs to contact their congressional Representative.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Obviously you already understand this, and are sort of playing "devil's advocate," but for those who might be sincerely confused...


It is perfectly legal for a Canadian to mail any amount of money he or she wants, any where they want. It is NOT, however, perfectly legal for a person in the United States to receive amounts greater than $10k, through the mail, without proper paperwork being filed first. That's the Catch-22. Banks in Canada ought to be aware of that, though I myself wouldn't have asked the Canadian bank; I would have had the U.S. relatives check with the American bank that I was sending the money to.


That said, it is still completely unreasonable that this is taking so very long to get resolved.

No, but this is factually incorrect.


These are the facts:



* The Canadian has no obligation to report sending the check.


* The American has no obligation to report receiving the check, or depositing it.


* The bank where the American deposits the check is obligated to file a Form 8300, any time someone deposits cash over $10,000. But this does not apply to deposits of checks which are not endorsed to make them negotiable, so does not apply here, and in any case, we didn't get that far.




So there was no violation of any reporting requirement at all.

[bill352]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

In any case, the family in the U.S. needs to contact their congressional Representative.

Absolutely, but do it now, while it's still election season. The day after the election, they don't want to hear about it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

But what was sent was not "just" a check. It was a bank draft. Yes, that's a type of check, but the Canadian bank itself balked at cancelling the drafts, because they are just like cash -- which would clearly imply that they ARE negotiable..

Just because it's a cashier's check, doesn't mean it's "just like cash". It becomes like cash only when the PERSON TO WHOM IT IS MADE out endorses it so that third parties can negotiate it. That obviously did not happen in this case, and furthermore, he was not even accused of this.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 30yearslater

Sorry you are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. No I'm not sorry at all for you being wrong.. .

Sorry, wrong about what, exactly?


The facts:


1. No reporting is required to mail a cashier's check from Canada to the U.S.



2. There is no limit on the amount of money which it is legal to send this way.



3. No reporting is required of the depositor, to deposit such a check in a U.S. bank account (the bank reports it on Form 8300).


4. There is no limit on the amount of money which it is legal to deposit in a U.S. bank account.



5. There is no indication of money laundering or terrorism whatsoever, in the executor of a will, having received an inheritance through a probate court, purchasing -- not with cash! -- a cashier's check from a large commercial bank, and mailing it to the heir in the U.S. for deposit in his bank account. Not the slightest in the world. No cash involved at any stage, no money involved the source of which is not obvious, no possible question about the reason why the recipient is receiving it, no illegality in any aspect of the transaction.





Anything unclear? If I'm "wrong, wrong, wrong" about it (wow, repeated three times, I must be really wrong! ), let's see the law or regulation.

Originally Posted by bill352

And how many posts in this thread are saying exactly that ["If they are arresting him; he must be guilty of something; it's OK."]?


Stop it, Dockhead - you're scarin' me here.

Just read the above. Perfectly law abiding people doing perfectly legal things get their inheritance seized and held for a year, and barely get it back, and a number of people don't even flinch -- "He got what was coming to him; you better expect to be treated like that; really suspicious; can't be legal what they did." Ya'll are scarin' ME!

[john61ct]

I agree.

The whole civil asset seizure thing has provided institutional incentives that cause - in some cases - law enforcement to ignore the spirit even the letter of the law, and simply try to see what they can get away with, just grabbing assets from citizens "because we can".

A more fundamental example of government gone wrong is hard to imagine.

The fact this situation was trending to be corrected, but is now apparently going back the other way, is mind boggling to me.