How does the Bank Secrecy Act affect normal law-abiding citizens? The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 was designed to detect money laundering by organized criminals. Among other things, it requires banks to report large currency transactions in excess of $10,000 to the Justice Department. In 1970, $10,000 was a lot of money -- enough to buy a house in some parts of the country. In 2017, however, an average financially disciplined middle-class family could easily have that much in savings. This is tempered somewhat by the fact that in our modern age most large transactions are now done electronically rather than with giant bags of money. Recently, I came into a windfall. A fat tax return, combined with money from a legal settlement, a cashout of PTO at work, a lot of overtime on my last paycheck, plus the amount I already had in savings has netted more money in my bank account than I've ever had at one time in my life. I'd like to take pictures of this event, since it's all going to pay off debt very shortly :-) What I would like to do is withdraw all of this money in $20 bills, carry it out of the bank in a big bag with a '$' sign on it, spread it all out on my bed, and roll around in it Scrooge McDuck style. I would of course take it back to the bank promptly, because you really shouldn't have that much cash just laying around. My question is, what kind of harassment, if any, could I expect from the government or the bank about that? Would it put me on some kind of watch list or start a covert investigation on me? Do I have to fill out any special forms (the Wikipedia article I linked to above suggests a CTR would be needed but doesn't say if the bank or the customer files it)?
None First, only cash transactions are reportable: electronic and cheque transactions aren't. The only ones that will be reported are your single withdrawal and deposit. As you say $10,000 is not a lot of money. What law enforcement is looking for a people who frequently have large cash transactions: they use data matching algorithms to identify these people. Your single transaction will not be noticed.
The original 1913 Revenue Act only required the reporting of income from "lawful" sources. In the 1921 Revenue Act the word, "lawful" was removed requiring all income to be reported. [IRS Publication 17] states: Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity. In United States v. Sullivan in 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to require that a tax return be filed to report income. If the filer believed information required to be filed would incriminate him then the filer could raise the issue on the form. The filer could not simply refuse to file. Justice Holmes further wrote: It is urged that, if a return were made, the defendant would be entitled to deduct illegal expenses, such as bribery. This by no means follows, but it will be time enough to consider the question when a taxpayer has the temerity to raise it. In Garner v. United States in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that a filer's income tax return that revealed himself to be a gambler could be used as evidence that the filer violated gambling laws. An article in Forbes describes a taxpayer who filed their returns but refused to answer some questions related to their income, asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege. The IRS attempted to impose a "frivolous return" penalty on the taxpayer for refusing to provide all information. The Tax Court ruled that the taxpayer had a legitimate fear regarding disclosure of information related to failing to file a report of foreign bank and financial accounts. The tax court found the taxpayer had filed the standard return, the return contained sufficient information and that a return doesn't need to be "completely correct" but, rather, "substantially correct." The IRS had claimed that omitting some information because of fear of self-incrimination is frivolous. The Tax Court found that the standard, Notice 2010-33, doesn't require that "all" information must be provided, simply that substantial information must be provided. As a result, the penalty was removed and the taxpayer's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege was found not to be "frivolous." As the Tax Court ruling explains, the Fifth Amendment privilege applies to tax returns, provided the taxpayer affirmatively claims the privilege on the return and does so before he files it. In summary, it is still necessary to file a return; a blanket Fifth Amendment claim applying to the entire return is considered frivolous. However, the taxpayer must claim the privilege. Any incriminating information included on the return can be used against the taxpayer.
You don't need to have an existing relationship with a lawyer to refuse to talk to the police. You can tell the police you want a lawyer before answering questions. Generally speaking, this should result in the police leaving you alone, giving you time to reach out to an attorney on your own timeline. This is of course a bit more complicated if you've already been arrested, but in most cases, you'll still be able to make calls out of jail to try to find a lawyer. If you have serious concerns about this kind of situation, having an attorney on retainer would be a good idea. The business end of the transaction is fairly simple. You would likely sign an engagement agreement with the lawyer in which you agree to pay a modest sum -- $500 or $1,000, imagine, and the lawyer would agree to take your calls when they come in and swoop in to deal with the police as necessary. The lawyer would be required to place your money in a trust account and not touch it until you call him to use his services. If you're expecting the lawyer to go further by actually appearing in court for you, filing motions, defending you at trial, etc., the retainer would likely be substantially higher.
The law on the web page is not current: as of the beginning of the year, RCW 23.86.030(1) reads (you'll find this under Sec. 9103) "The name of any association subject to this chapter must comply with part I, Article 3 of this act" and is otherwise unchanged. In Article 3, sec. 1301 governs names, giving the sec'y some discretion to deem a name to not be distinguishable from another, saying in (3) "A name may not be considered distinguishable on the records of the secretary of state from the name of another entity by virtue of...variation in the words, phrases, or abbreviations indicating the type of entity, such as "corporation," "corp.," "incorporated," "Inc.,". It does not list "co-op", but there is no legal requirement that the list be exhaustive. This discretion is, however, related to distinguishability. However, (4) then says An entity name may not contain language stating or implying that the entity is organized for a purpose other than those permitted by the entity's public organic record. and I think that means "no". Note that LLCs, LPs, LLPs, business corporations, nonprofit corporations and cooperative associations all have name requirements of the type "must contain" and "may not contain" (a cooperative association, oddly, has no "must contain" requirements). I would say that we have to conclude that "legislative intent" was to more closely align names and legal status, and the new "purpose-implication" language isn't brilliantly clear, but that is what the intent of the law is. This is one of those issues that could easily work its way to the Supreme Court, if someone wanted to make a state case of it.
Yes Yes, telling lies is generally not unlawful, much less criminal, as long as you did not intend to profit by them, and there is no specific law violated (for example it is a crime to lie to a law enforcement officer about matters materiel to an ongoing investigation). Attempting to get the scammer to send you money on false pretenses, however morally justified some would consider it, is likely to constitute fraud.
It depends partly on where you are. If you're in the foreign country and they have a law compelling you to answer any questions asked by their government or some company, they you have to answer the question. Whether lying has any legal repercussions depends on the laws of the country, so you'd have to narrow it down a bit. If you're in the US, the only context where you can be compelled to answer a question is when ordered to do so in court (giving testimony), and you have 5th Amendment immunity from being forced to testify against yourself. If you are granted immunity from prosecution, then they can compel you to testify (answer the question). If a foreign entity asks you whether you are a US citizen, you can decline to answer. You can also make up any answer you want, and generally not run afoul of US law (though you could run into problems in that country). There are state and federal laws about making false statements in official investigations, which would not be applicable to what you describe. There is no general law that says you must always tell the truth. However, making a false statement could be part of the crime of fraud, so it would depend on the context of your statement, i.e. are you misrepresenting your citizenship in order to get something of value. In light of the topical update, again there may be country-specific penalties in country for lying about citizenship, and tax evasion is against the law here, which is true whether or not you lie. FATCA specifies a duty to disclose (sect. 6038d), which is not tied to truthful reporting of citizenship (in other words, there is no point in lying to the bank because non-reporting is still a crime). But: this law probably brings the lie with the scope of 18 USC 1001 ("Martha's Law"), which makes it a crime to conceal a material fact "in any matter within the jurisdiction of ...the United States". This means and has been held to mean not just that you can't lie to federal officers, you can't lie to anyone who reports your information to the federal government. FATCA also says "we don't care if it's a crime to report being an American in that country", so inconveniences certainly are not a defense.
Yes, in england-and-wales the Criminal Finances Act 2017 introduced 'Unexplained Wealth Orders', which compel the respondent to provide a statement: (a) setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made, (b) explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met), (c) where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and (d) setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified. There a few requirements set out in section 362B, for example, the property must have value of over £50,000; there should be &quot;reasonable grounds&quot; for suspicion that the respondent would have been unable to obtain the property using their lawfully obtained income; the respondent or their connections must have either been involved in serious or organised crime, or be a politically exposed person, and so on. If the respondent refuses to make such a statement, the police may apply for a Civil Recovery Order to confiscate the property, with the property in question &quot;presumed to be recoverable property&quot; (section 362C(2)). Giving false information in such a statement is a criminal offence.
There's some artistic license in play there - the US Treasury will replace damaged (or &quot;mutilated&quot; as they call it) currency for free under certain conditions. Lawful holders of mutilated currency may receive a redemption at full value when: (1) Clearly more than 50% of a note identifiable as United States currency is present, along with sufficient remnants of any relevant security feature; or (2) 50% or less of a note identifiable as United States currency is present and the method of mutilation and supporting evidence demonstrate to the satisfaction of the BEP that the missing portions have been totally destroyed. From your description they fail the first condition - they've burned it all so they aren't presenting &gt; 50% of a note, 0% is clearly less than 50% [citation needed] and they also fail the second condition as it doesn't seem that they are carrying any &quot;identifiable&quot; portion of the money. Further: No redemption will be made when: (1) A submission, or any portion thereof, demonstrates a pattern of intentional mutilation or an attempt to defraud the United States. In such instances, the entire submission will be destroyed or retained as evidence. The &quot;mutilation&quot; was clearly intentional in this case. and (4) Fragments and remnants presented are not identifiable as United States currency. Seems to reiterate that you have to present some identifiable remnants. I suppose if the Embassy worker was a Bureau of Engraving and Printing representative, or the affidavits they provided were sufficient to convince the BEP that currency of x value was present, and completely destroyed etc. then the only hurdle would be the &quot;intentional mutilation&quot; aspect. The &quot;intentional mutilation&quot; itself is illegal under 18 U.S. Code § 333: Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.