"There are countless horrible things happening all over the world and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible." -Auberon Waugh
It's based on a series of laws which cover "Proceeds of Crime Offences". These were originally intended to enhance anti-Mafia investigations but they have proven to be helpful in financing Police Departments and such. For example, in this case the supermarket owners were making bank runs when their cash holdings neared $10K: their robery insurance covered them to that sum. However, the IRS rules treat bank deposits over $10K as potential "proceeds of crime" and require detailed bank reporting. They then deem amounts approaching but not exceeding $10K as attempt to structure the deposits to avoid such reporting, which is thus illegal. And IRS rules are not subject to "higher scrutiny".
They get a cut. That's what's wrong. Lots of examples of sheriffs, etc. doing over somebody for their property as well, and all because they get to keep it. Don't even have to prove anything. The suspicion is enough.
Ummm...did I miss something?
ReplyDeleteWhy did the IRS seize the money from the business owner's bank account, if he wasn't doing anything illegal?
Just because they can? Or were they bored, and needed something to do?
It's based on a series of laws which cover "Proceeds of Crime Offences". These were originally intended to enhance anti-Mafia investigations but they have proven to be helpful in financing Police Departments and such.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in this case the supermarket owners were making bank runs when their cash holdings neared $10K: their robery insurance covered them to that sum. However, the IRS rules treat bank deposits over $10K as potential "proceeds of crime" and require detailed bank reporting. They then deem amounts approaching but not exceeding $10K as attempt to structure the deposits to avoid such reporting, which is thus illegal.
And IRS rules are not subject to "higher scrutiny".
Cheers
Despicable.
ReplyDeleteThey get a cut. That's what's wrong. Lots of examples of sheriffs, etc. doing over somebody for their property as well, and all because they get to keep it. Don't even have to prove anything. The suspicion is enough.
ReplyDelete