Whatever your stance on crypto, privacy should be a fundamental right.
Remember, the most privacy-preserving way of trade is dealing with cash, yet no one sees it as "criminal."
Remember, the most privacy-preserving way of trade is dealing with cash, yet no one sees it as "criminal."
The government seizes cash all the time for no other reason than the cash itself existing.
Between 2000 and 2016, CBP and other DHS agencies conducted at least 30,574 currency seizures at airports, taking over $2 billion in total. Over two-thirds of all cases involving currency seized at airports were not accompanied by an arrest. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/hom..., https://ij.org/report/jetway-robbery/
The #waroncash is real then?
Of course, there is a large spectrum of cases here with many outliers.
I am sure there were a few mistakes made across those 16 years and 2 billion dollars.
Civil asset forfeiture needs some reform. Even if you go to court you need to prove your innocence - a much higher bar then traditional court cases.
It is a popular theme for Turks working in Germany having their cash seized by Serbia on their way to a vacation in Turkey. This is because, the Turkish diaspora in Germany is predominantly blue collar due to the nature of their immigration(long story short, many years go Germany requested workers for their factories, many Turks took the opportunity) and they have a lot of opportunities to deal with cash and not pay tax on it.
Essentially, Turks who do "tax-free" business buy properties in Turkey and there's a common fraud to claim benefits because on the books they look very poor, so they definitely don't want that money to go into the books and the Serbian police apparently caught up with it.
Anyway, the fraud is about to be solved not by seizure of assets but by data-sharing agreement between EU and Turkey, the Turkish banks and the state will report the properties and assets to EU&UK for anti fraud purposes. There are many pissed off people about it.
That being said, I think there are more pervasive rules in our society that makes these seizures mild in comparison. Using the numbers you posted, that's $65k per seizure. Individuals carrying around the median annual household income is much more suspect than the $10k deposit limit that must be reported to the IRS. If law abiding folks get hassled for $10k, then $65k is obviously questionable. I think banks should not have to report anything but at the very least the limit should be $1M. $10k is a good day (Christmas, Black Friday, etc.) of sales for many regular people. Hell, even bartenders can make $10k in tips over the course of months not even years.
However, your right to privacy ends where money laundering and fraud begin. These are real problems that get in the way of catching criminals, and not just simple fraudsters and other non-violent liars.
Every paper bill has a unique serial number that gets tracked by banks to trace stolen money. I don't know about any dedicated privacy companies that will take your money and exchange it for random bills of equal value, but if they exist I'd expect the police to have an interest in them, and for good reason. Sure, you could use "privacy" as a reason to visit them regularly but I doubt you'll convince anyone.
And bills probably shouldn't be serialized for that exact reason. My right to privacy is more important than anybody's right to feel "safe" from the evil bad guys. The correct answer to stopping crime is to stop crime, not to weaponize our financial system and remove civil liberties.
Should gov also scan every photo on your phone for criminal activity? Install cameras in your home? If your right to privacy ends when there is potential for crime then you'll have no privacy at all.
They get eventually caught, and substantial assets are recovered - real estate, jewelry, art, luxury yachts. Not all. But in a world of fully anonymous crypto, these guys would either never get caught, or would vanish into thin air with their Ledgers, and that's that.
I used to think, haha, crypto, buy some drugs with it, but this really scared me. I'm not anti crypto, and I quite like the technology, but this kind of "mine and no one else's business" attitude terrifies me.
There is an idea of balance of interests between the individual and the society. This is why for example your employer has to report salary data directly to the government but there are laws in place that control who else they disclose that too and under what circumstances. See also, for example, sex-offender registries, census gathering, etc.
NB: I'm not offering comment on whether or not the balance on those cases (or others) has been made correctly, just pointing out that it is a generally accepted concept in modern "western democracies" at least, and seems to be held by the majority of citizens unless you get pretty deep into the tails.
Of course, this is an easy example with an obvious right/wrong. In the real world situations are all over the place, so our goal should be to constantly strive to find a more perfect balance.
The right to privacy doesn't mean you can facilitate money laundering with impunity. Just like my right to privacy doesn't mean I can blind everyone in a shop if I don't want them to know what I'm buying.
> Remember, the most privacy-preserving way of trade is dealing with cash, yet no one sees it as "criminal."
Try to buy a one-way airline ticket with cash and see if you don't have suspicion fall upon you.
Privacy is not, has never been, and will never be, equivalent to full perfect anonymity.
> privacy - noun - the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
We have the right to privacy and this is what privacy means.
One thing I've done when talking to cryptobros and other privacy extremists is ask them to think back to a time (and we all know they've all done it) when they railed non-stop against the "banksters" and consider how much more power and influence they would have if the rules they themselves want regarding privacy are applied evenly to all circumstances.
There are a few people, and I'm inclined to believe them, who say "yeah Capital One and Deutsche Bank have the right to mask their cartel money laundering activities under the concept of absolute anonymity and any attempts at know-your-customer or records-keeping requirements for banks are antithetical to freedom" but they are very rare.
Again, I believe those people are being earnest because I know extremists exist for every position.
But most people just shout "THAT'S DIFFERENT", get angry, and call me a boot-licker or something like that.
edit: another scenario I use is:
Privacy-conscious business owner: Hello yes, I would like to start a business selling car seatbelts whose webbing is impregnated with a fire retardant that we know will cause fatal cancer.
Evil Government: Ok, please fill out this paperwork to get a business license and provide points of contact so people can sue you when they get cancer from their seatbelts.
Privacy-conscious business owner: No. That is a violation of my rights. I have the right to perfect anonymity.
Evil Government: I suppose you've got us there! Have a nice day.
> Again, I believe those people are being earnest because I know extremists exist for every position.
Indeed. I hear a lot of this rhetoric from both crypto maximalists and crypto skeptics and both of them always argue in very absolute terms.
I can agree that regulators won't allow privacy coins like Monero and tools like Tornado.cash to succeed and are already de-listing, banning them from exchanges. It also doesn't mean that these cryptocurrency or projects will 'all die in a fire' or 'totally go away' entirely. The same is true for crypto maximalists who also believe that it will 'take over the whole financial system'.
I'm already convinced that (some) cryptocurrencies and (some) crypto projects are here to stay.
Except for, ya know, when you launder that cash, kinda like what Tornado does...
"Laundering" cash means making declaring fraudulent income from a business to make the cash income look legitimate. From the perspective of the tax authorities, it doesn't matter whether you have the "same" 100 ETH you had on Thursday, the question still remains whether you have undeclared income.
This is more like... depositing hundred dollar bills at a bank, and then withdrawing different ones from an ATM.
"Sir are you carrying more than .5 bitcoins in a physical wallet on your persons, 10,000$ in cash, illegal drugs or cigarettes?"
The police need, within certain guardrails, to be able to search private property for evidence during investigations. Civil suits are going to require some element of discovery. Tax authorities are going to need to perform audits. Your landlord is going to need to come into your apartment to fix a leaking pipe if you're away.
You would need to make the follow up argument that crypto should be treated like cash for some reason.
Laundering cash is illegal too!