Col. Crackpot wrote:Banks are required by BSA to devote sizable resources to screen out 'false positives'. Front line staff, software as well as anylists who do nothing but revew suspected activity. Furthermore a levy hold cannot be placed on a bank account without a court order and due process.
Well, that's sure as hell not how it happened here. This man's money was levied by the IRS,
but he has not been charged with any crime. And yet, four years later, they still haven't given his money back. When as far as we know, the ONLY thing that ever brought him to the IRS's attention was the bank's alert to investigate them.
And as far as we know the investigation turned up NOTHING, assuming the IRS even did an investigation. Which is certainly the impression we get, when we remember that
the IRS didn't charge him with anything.
Look, I am all for limiting the power and reach of the federal government, but I have no sympathy for tax cheats and guys legitimizing the proceeds from crack dealing who have been granted the benefit of due process.
In which case you should be talking about some other, different man, and not the man in the OP.
Col. Crackpot wrote:Which is always done. For a bank to file a STR to the government it takes more than a few suspected structured deposits. There are always other red flags. Large purchase of negotiable instruments. Immidiate wires etc.
Yes, but no matter how careful the bank normally is*,
a bank is a private institution, not a law enforcement agency.
The bank simply does not have standing to make an internal investigation,
and on the strength of that alone, call the IRS and tell them to confiscate a person's money in such a way that it will take years to get back. The IRS has to ask questions, double-check the paper trail, check out the man's business, do
something.
This is necessary to ensure that the accused gets due process of
law before his property is taken, rather than getting due course of "private citizens holding a meeting and deciding he's a criminal."
If a bank reports detailed evidence suggesting that a crime has been committed, it would be reasonable for the IRS to take certain steps. It would be reasonable for them to intrusively (with a warrant) examine his financial records. It would be reasonable for them to ask him, or people who work with him, questions. Perhaps even to detain him if the evidence is very damning and if there's no other quick way to get the information they need.
But it is
not reasonable for the IRS to arbitrarily confiscate a man's money and potentially ruin his business, then refuse to give the money back for four years when they can't find charges to press him with, on the say-so of a private organization.
The state cannot outsource its power to enforce the law by confiscating the property of citizens. People have rights to due process before their property is taken, and no action taken by a bank can constitute due process
in and of itself.
*How do you know this bank practiced due diligence?
