Down Payment Paid in Full with Cash - Dilemma

[20pilot]

Your post did a real good job of implying the OP was attempting to commit a crime but they specifically posted they did not want to break any laws.

I do not know if you are dense, or like to play one on the internet (I suspect the former). If the OP says, that he has considered doing A or doing B or doing C, but does not want to do anything illegal, how do you propose telling him that A and B are illegal?

They didn't bother me with a $20k cash purchase of a car.

Did you pay with $20 bills, $100 bills or a truckload of pennies?

I am not arguing that what you post is not possible. I am arguing that by your statements, everybody should never have any cash lest they are going to lose it to the government. I have a bit more hope for and faith in our government than that.

I suggest you research a few cases. I will offer two of them for a start. In both cases, the government confiscated cash from the individuals but neither individual was charged with anything or even investigated for any crime past the initial police contact. The following are from the appeals court decisions that are still standing (all appeals have been exhausted):

From "US v. $124,700" the majority opinion states: "Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

From "US v.$91,960" the opinion explains "In a forfeiture proceeding, the government bears the initial burden of proving probable cause to connect the property involved in the forfeiture proceeding to some form of criminal wrongdoing. Once probable cause is established, the burden shifts to the claimant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is not subject to forfeiture, or that a defense to forfeiture applies."

Under this standard, since possession is "strong evidence" which is more than "probably cause" then mere posession shifts the burden on the owner to prove his innocence.

Also keep in mind, the cases are the US government versus the money. The owner has to spend a bunch of money first establishing standing and then acting on behalf of the money being forfeited to oppose forfeiture. And one more thing, he can not use any of that money for his legal expenses.

 

[brutus1776]

it never ceases to amuse me how the official currency of the US is about worthless in situations like this. try to use any large sum of cash and most people wont even accept it. if you go to use a large amount of money, the .gov can pin about any number of 'crimes' against you, or otherwise cause you life to be a hassle, with audits, etc etc.

best bet is to find a 'guerilla capitalist' (just like your significant other) that will accept cash for payment and/or seek owner financing. you'll eventually find the right deal.

some people still accept 'cash' for payment.

 

[justalayman]

=20pilot;2227589]I do not know if you are dense, or like to play one on the internet (I suspect the former). If the OP says, that he has considered doing A or doing B or doing C, but does not want to do anything illegal, how do you propose telling him that A and B are illegal?

I have no problem telling him such was illegal but YOU stated it in a manner that implied he intended on breaking the law. That, again, is what I had issue with.

Did you pay with $20 bills, $100 bills or a truckload of pennies?

Mostly $100's. No pennies.

I suggest you research a few cases. I will offer two of them for a start.

You asked how many. I said 4. Either you step up and provide what you implied you would or walk away in failure.

.

The following are from the appeals court decisions that are still standing (all appeals have been exhausted):

the court also ruled that the circumstances were consistent with drug dealings and having money wrapped in aluminum foil is very telling along with many other items of contention. This was not simply a "we found a guy with a bunch of money so let's take it". There was reason to believe it was not legit.

From "US v. $124,700" the majority opinion states: "Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

and the dissenting opinion said the opposite.

From "US v.$91,960"

I will not even bother with this one other than post this from:CURRENCY SNIFFS

B) United States v $91,960 U.S. Currency (897 F. 2d 1457 (1990) Eighth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was probable cause to believe $91,960 of an airline passenger was involved in narcotics, based upon these factors:
• large amount of money in a briefcase, beneath torn phonebook pages;
• a notebook appearing to record drug transactions;
• the suspect provided inconsistent explanation as to presence of money, purchase of case, and his arrest record;
• dog sniff test indicated briefcase had been near narcotics;
• suspect was convicted of distribution of marijuana recently.

These were not ordinary run of the mill "guy has $100,000 in his pocket" cases. They both have undertones of drug dealings. How about one where Joe American has some money in his house and is found and confiscated. Not some guy known to be a drug dealer. Somebody like an well respected citizen of a decent community.

 

[20pilot]

and the dissenting opinion said the opposite.

And since when does a dissenting opinion have any precedent value?

These were not ordinary run of the mill "guy has $100,000 in his pocket" cases. They both have undertones of drug dealings.

If you choose to not read, I can not help you. I have already pointed out, at least one appeals court has ruled that the mere existance of large sums of cash is strong evidence of a connection to drug activity.

 

[BLITZEN7777]

Ctr/bsa/sar

The bank is required to file the CTR on any amounts deposited on a daily basis over $3000.00. They're just going to want your ID info for that report. It isn't a big deal if it's legit. I live in NV and work for a bank; but also with the gambling here, I have had to deposit winnings of that much and more into my accounts. No big deal if everything is legit. It's a simple form, but any large dollar transaction is going to raise a "red-flag." That's just the way the banking system and the regulators are. They want to make sure there isn't anything illegal going on; that's why they track these transactions by $$$ amounts. Many times I've had to do research on possible illegal activity for the IRS, FBI or some other agency on a persons account regarding transaction history - how the money came in, where it went - and so forth. The audit trail is very perceptive; don't think you can elude anyone if there's a "red flag" showing on your transactions. It could take a while, but sometimes the feds are willing to wait if they have suspicions about your activities! Everything can be traced.

 

[justalayman]

=20pilot;2228401]And since when does a dissenting opinion have any precedent value?

It shows that the court is what it is today but may not be the same tomorrow. Since this was an appeals court and not a SCOTUS case, it's application is limited to it's district and the decision has limited weight.

If you choose to not read, I can not help you. I have already pointed out, at least one appeals court has ruled that the mere existance of large sums of cash is strong evidence of a connection to drug activity.

Why don't YOU read. There were many other items considered when making the determination they did. If that were the ONLY justification for the forfeiture, I strongly doubt the lower courts case would have been overturned.

So, where are the other 2 cases.