Hacker News Reader

Comment by superuser2 | Hacker News Reader

For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him in cash. We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives.

That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to get mad about people experiencing bad outcomes when they take stupid risks.

There are many other examples that make a better case against civil asset forfeiture.

View on HN

Umm, it is normal enough thing to do. Here are some other cases, found by searching just for "$15,000":

"The Catholic priest took $15,000 in cash to Skid Row and doled it out to hundreds of the city's most down-and-out residents outside the Fred Jordan Missions" - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Priest-turns-90-handin...

"Dr. Berlin took $15,000 from the cash received in wedding gifts, leased an examination room in another doctor's office and worked nights and weekends over the next decade to build a thriving private practice all his own." - http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/28/us/clinton-s-health-plan-s...

"“Once you’re in Cuba – as an American – everything has to be paid in cash. American credit and debit cards do not work — hotels, meals, taxis AND the cost of the footage all had to be paid for in cash. We took $15,000 in cash. To make things more difficult, we could not pay in $U.S. for the footage. We had to transfer our dollars to Cuban pesos." - http://www.documentarytelevision.com/sweet-spots/fidel-castr...

"During the criminal trial, Chatfield testified that Brown had met with her several times and lured her to his house, hinting that it might be for sale. Chatfield said she brought $15,000 in cash as a possible down payment on June 15, 2012." - http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2014/08/12/253190....

"Baltimore Woman Posted a Stranger’s $15,000 Cash Bail To Get Him Out Of Jail" - http://www.barstoolsports.com/dmv/woman-posted-a-strangers-1...

"The woman’s $3000 Louis Vuitton handbag was stolen with $15,000 inside while she was waiting for a green light on the corner of Chesterville Rd and Bernard St at 2.15pm on Monday. ... the woman reported the money as “business takings”." - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/louis-vuitton...

These are just cases where one person had the money in public. I left out places where an organization raise $15K in charity, or someone won $15K in cash from a raffle ticket, or people found $15K in someone's home after they died, or in one case in Australia where the husband put $15K in the oven and the wife, not knowing that, turned on the oven to preheat it.

And of course you don't hear about all the normal cases where nothing notable happened.

Honestly, the only one of these that doesn't seem weird is the Cuba trip (and carrying large amounts of cash across international borders has its own laws). Most of the rest are either "possibly criminal activity" or "likely not a giant pile of cash".

"Weird" is an odd word. Should we penalize the weird? Should we be encouraging more conformity? Or is it merely that only the unusual makes the news?

The doctor received $15K in cash from wedding gifts. How is that weird? Is it because your baseline doesn't include people with rich relatives?

The "Baltimore Woman [who] Posted a Stranger’s $15,000 Cash Bail" was because of a judge's order:

> But in addition to criminal charges a judge had imposed a strict “cash only” bail condition on Wilkes. The so-called “cash only” restriction bars suspects from using a bond or personal property to make bail.

Had it not been an anonymous person, and one of the family members brought in the $15K, it wouldn't have made the news.

At the very least, it establishes that a judge thinks that walking around with $15K in cash is not beyond the pale.

Would the bail really be paid on physical cash?

I'd expect them to take an electronic transfer, or a cheque in the name of the bank.

You're right - I'm not sure what "cash bail" means. In New Hampshire it means:

> CASH BAIL - a person who is required to post cash bail must put up money, either cash or money order/bank check, to be released. If the funds are not posted with the court, the person may not leave and will be jailed. - http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/criminal/

According to http://www.24jdc.us/bail-bonds/ :

> CASH BAIL: Cash for the total amount of bail in the form of cashier’s check or money order delivered to the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center. If the defendant shows up for all his scheduled court appearances, the bail is returned at the conclusion of the case. If the defendant fails to appear, the bond is forfeited to the court.

I now think it's more likely to have been cashier’s check or money order than actual physical cash.

Thanks for that out.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that, where there's a conflict between two parties, discovering that one party was negligent always reduces the other party's culpability, as if fault was a conserved quantity to be distributed around. But the law (and morality) aren't like this. In this case, the fact that this guy was foolish does nothing to reduce the wrongness of the police actions here, which is what everyone gets so outraged about.

You're correct that it is not wise to carry that much cash. However, we are allowed to do it. We are allowed to carry cash on us. I personally wouldn't do it unless I didn't have any other options, but for someone to have their money taken from them without evidence that it was derived from criminal activity is really messed up. And this isn't the first time that civil forfeiture has been used to deprive law abiding citizens of their property.

Having cops steal money should not be a risk anyone is taking, let alone a stupid one. If he got mugged, that'd be another thing.

Also, free alternatives? Elaborate. And certainly they aren't free from surveillance.

We should encourage and treat the carrying of $$$$$ in cash as a normal thing to do.

Checking accounts. Bitcoin (not free, but close).

If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger, or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence.

>And certainly they aren't free from surveillance.

If you want a financial system free from surveillance then you need to get the public on board with ending taxation (and consequently all public services). Good luck.

And, as we saw, moving cash on an airplane is the most heavily surveilled and scrutinized way to do it.

> Bitcoin (not free, but close).

Suggesting Bitcoin in its current state of evolution as a free and "vastly safer" alternative to carrying cash is CRAZY. Whereas having the cash on you carries the risk of being mugged (I understood the story that he had the cash directly with him when the police arrived, it wasn't in the checked luggage, therefore the airline risks you mention do not apply), using Bitcoin carries much higher risks of:

- exchange going bust,

- exchange being hacked,

- exchange rate going down violently,

- Bitcoin wallet being stolen from his computer via malware,

- exchange's banking accounts being seized.

To a layperson unskilled with Bitcoin, walking with 11,000 USD in pockets through airport, using taxi/Uber and arriving in front of your door in a non-ghetto neighbourhood compares to Bitcoin as putting that cash into transparent bag, hanging it on your neck and walking through deserted city at night yelling "look, I have cash".

And even when you are skilled or take (a lot of) your time to read about everything starting with comparing various exchanges, securing your computer, using paper wallets, etc., you are dependant on very volatile exchange rate.

I generally support Bitcoin for various purposes (e.g. e-commerce) based on various reasons. But no, it certainly is not "vastly safer" for storing or even merely transferring your life savings, especially for a non-skilled person.

To elaborate more - each and every method of moving money has its own inherent risks. For example, when my father bought a car several times decades apart, he would take the cash both from home and bank, carry it in a jacket in an envelope to a dealer, put it on the table, immediately receive keys and papers for registration and drive away.

Fast forward in time and somebody had a very "clever" idea to outlaw paying more than 5,000 EUR in cash. Now, I have to wire transfer the funds in advance, wait for the transfer to clear and then come in to get the car. I certainly don't risk being mugged on my way to the dealer (in broad daylight, without advertising everyone, e.g. on social networks, that today I am buying a car and waving the wad of cash in a selfie). But if the limited liability company with 6,000 EUR liability deposit bankrupts, I will have neither the money (wire transfer have nothing like cashback on credit cards) nor the car until a lengthy legal process hoping that they have enough funds and property to pay out all creditors... You don't risk mugging but have to do way larger due diligence, check finance health of the company, ask around for customer feedback on the company, etc.

But it wasn't a private criminal theft. The only person who stole the money was hr police. No police, no problem.

If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger, or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence.

We, as a society condemn muggers and thieves. We, as a society hold airlines responsible for safely transporting baggage without losing it or its contents. We lock muggers and thieves in cages to discourage such behavior and isolate those who perpetrate it from everyone else. We require airlines to pay compensation (up to $3000 in the US) to people whose property they lose.

We should similarly condemn the state behaving in a way that produces the same result as a mugger.

If carrying $$$$$ in cash is a normal thing to do, the EV of a mugging goes way up, and I expect muggings would go up, which is a bad thing.

That's not to say I support the actions taken here, of course.

Bitcoin seems a viable alternative. However its value goes up and down constantly.

> No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives.

Why would you have 'culpability' for carrying your own money? Why would you have culpability for not always doing the normal thing - it's also not normal to be an religious minority, a homosexual, or a member of the Green Party; do they also deserve the blame for whatever arbitrary measures that the government chooses to take against them?

I think that you're saying that it's wise to treat your government as hostile, and to hide anything that you do that is out of the ordinary. Fine. But the idea that that makes it a bad case against civil asset forfeiture is like saying that the best cases for religious/racial discrimination should be to defend white Protestants.

People should be able to carry large amounts of cash, normal or not.

The fact that it's risky considering the fact that crime is impossible to eradicate is one thing.

The fact that we have a publicly sanctioned version of this crime enshrined in law is another, and plenty of reason to get mad.

I'm glad there are more sympathetic cases. This is sympathetic enough.

There aren't a lot of safe ways to keep cash - bank accounts can be seized for all number of reasons with zero recourse, so a bank account isn't a particularly good place either.

Please don't blame the victim. Would you like me to steal your car just because I can force it away from you?

Do you expect your car insurance company to cover theft when you leave the keys in the ignition?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com