Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense, rather than implying that there was any wrong-doing on the part of the cash carriers.
- People that gave me cash in an envelope at my wedding, as it's cheaper than getting a money order/bank check if you don't write a regular check that takes forever to clear with large amounts. Don't want to think about how much I was carting back home that night. Hell, replace wedding with any situation - I have had to cart around a fair amount of money in general between my parents and their friends that are in a war with each other over gifts/paying for things, sometimes unknowingly when people stuff an envelope in my purse/bag or somewhere in my car and then only tell me after the fact. (If you're Asian, you know what I'm talking about.)
- Me hauling ~$5k to go straight from my restaurant and bank across the street, to one of a couple of restaurant supply stores that offer a cash discount because they don't want to deal with fraud and fees (and nor do I). It's rare I buy a piece of equipment with cash, but sometimes it's urgent so I go in person instead of ordering it online.
- The other day, dad was in the hospital and they wanted payment asap. I had been in a rush and I didn't have my CCs on me only like $60 in cash and an ID, so I went to my restaurant and brought the payment over that was otherwise going to be deposited in the bank later that day.
Some of this is cultural though - older or still very Asian folks that like the feel of cold, hard cash. They're a lot of small business owners with businesses that deal with a lot of cash on a regular basis too. So you know what some of the deal is ;)
Having dealt with $10k+ checks in general though, I almost want to just deal with cash but it's just too easy to lose. I deposited a ~$50k bank check in my business account that took _three weeks_ to clear. As in, fully guaranteed by the bank funds. When they're not and they're just personal checks, I've occasionally gotten a stinkeye from bank tellers, nevermind the pain of going to the bank to deposit a check in the 5 figures in the first place (typically can't ATM or app deposit) - even though that's not uncommon for me (not even 1mo of contracting, or my parents' gift to me for my wedding).
Now, you prefixed your comment with "This is by no means a justification" so this isn't directed at you, but one of the reasons the criminal justice system is so messed up is because people in a position of power (judges, prosecutors, but also voters) don't realize what it's like to be poor, so when a poor person does something that they wouldn't do (like carrying large sums of cash), they assume it's either suspicious, or if not suspicious, foolish, so the poor person deserves what he/she gets. A bit of empathy could go a long way here.
Of the three victims that were profiled, 2 were business owners, all 3 (presumably) owned vehicles, and were carrying anywhere from $18k to $75. Now, that doesn't mean they were well off, but it's also not sounding like most people's definition of poverty. Surely business owners have to deal with the costs of bank transactions.
Again, I'm not trying to blame the victims here. I think they were wronged and that the police are overstepping their mandate. I do empathize with what happened to them. However, I've had enough experiences in life to form the belief that while at the same time you should stand up and speak against wrongdoings like this, you should also protect yourself as best you can, knowing that these things, sadly, will happen. That's where my original question originated from. For example, I don't keep valuables in my car, because while I know that the thieves who break into my car once or twice a year are completely in the wrong, I know I am putting myself at risk if I leave stuff in there for them to take. I'm not going to leave stuff in the car out of principle, because it's my "right".
One should be able to proffer advice without it being victim-blaming, but I do question the utility of offering advice which is difficult for the intended recipient to follow. Also remember we don't hear about the cases where cops don't seize cash, so the risk of carrying cash might be more tolerable than giving up some of your hard-earned money to banks.
I sold a car to someone on craigslist for a few thousand dollars. The person who bought it paid in cash, still in a bank envelope. This transaction was not criminal, and it's exceedingly unlikely that the money had illicit origins. I promptly deposited the cash into a checking account. The amount certainly prompted a Suspicious Activity Report to FinCEN, which I made no attempt to avoid, as doing so would have indeed been criminal.
Cash is just by far the most trustworthy form of payment to accept from strangers (other than perhaps cryptocurrency or physically going to the bank with them), which is why craigslist warns against money orders or checks of any kind.
It would have been entirely and unambiguously unjust if the state had seized that money from either me or the person I legally sold my car to.
And personal checks are plenty risky for fraud and insufficient funds.
You might as well say something like "I don't see why anyone would legitimately like death metal music." It's fine to not understand or share people's opinions and preferences, but it's ridiculous to support them being robbed simply because their preferences differ from yours.
I read the parent as specifically disclaiming such an implication.
If your money is a number and only you know what it is, it is safe from these kinds of intrusions.
Fatimah is an observant Muslim and thus has restricted choice of bank accounts. Her business is also a cash business but she keeps most of the cash in a safe because getting to a branch of a bank that offers an account that is compatible with her faith is a long drive. Thus she tends to have sizable amounts of cash when she actually goes to the bank.
Chris has been saving to buy a car. Chris has a problem controlling his spending with credit and debit cards, so he hands cash to his father who stuffs it in an envelope under a matress. While it's not particularly rational it works for Chris who now has $7,500 to buy a vehicle.
There's a bit of inconsistancy going on: "all criminals use cash, thus everyone who uses cash is a criminal". That's the kind of thinking that children are taught to be careful of and it's a bit scary to see it written into law.
I would suspect that the vast majority of such hauls is drug money laundering related. "Normal" folks would be scared of losing such cash or having it stolen. I know I would be petrified at the thought.
However, there are probably a few folks who don't use banks (don't trust 'em or don't use 'em just because) and this is how they buy a house or buy a car or go from one state to another with their possessions.
Now, here's where my ambivalence comes from: do we let the money laundering go because a few of these are false positives? Or do we accept the false positives because it serves the greater good because it catches or causes attrition for money launderers?
I think electronic or check transfers are a rational solution to the problem at hand and so folks should use that.
But I'm still ambivalent. Constitution. Checks and balances.
"Screw you, I've got mine."
Carrying that amount of cash is a high-risk venture regardless of whether these questionable seizures are happening or not (e.g. the threat of theft). The other methods mentioned may cost a bit, but that cost goes towards lowering the risk of the transaction. For someone carrying 5-figures worth of cash, how can those costs be prohibitively expensive?
When it's all you have, and already allocated to an expense that's necessary in one way or another. The fact that cash is in paper form, and not electronic form doesn't imply that it's from the discretionary part of your budget.
Also, there is the phenomenon of people with low incomes opting out of the banking system for various reasons including distrust of it.
[edit: 11:24AM CDT added second paragraph]
1. delays have a low marginal cost
or
2. the receiving party is both wealthy and trusting enough to buffer the entire transaction
Banks operate on a principle of eventual consistency that lets transactions and accounts dangle in limbo for days to weeks. Delays cost money: lost opportunities, missed deadlines, rent. Is it really so hard to believe that the expected cost of a weeklong delay (which happen all the time) would be more than the expected cost of theft (which is rare in comparison)?
However, protecting yourself against something like this doesn't have to mean that you think it's a reasonable and justified action. As I explained earlier, for the same reason I generally wouldn't carry this much cash around, I don't leave valuable items inside my locked car, even though it is illegal and unjust for someone to break into it and steal them.
It may help to compare cash to bitcoin to help you imagine it. One of bitcoin's motivations is, "Why does the convenience of electronic transfer come bundled with central authority?"
If you can reduce middle-man risk, that's a good thing. Banks have lost reputation with the poor to the point that it's seen as less risky to transport sums in cash.
Like, really--what is the actual harm of letting the laundering occur? What is the root cause of that harm? Why is it a large and profitable industry at all (hint: it's not because of the drugs)?
Then look at it on the other side:
What is the harm done to a citizen or person who isn't conducting illegal business but who is suddenly losing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars out of nowhere? What does that do to them, and can they recover? What is the chance of things escalating during such a seizure and in turn causing them to be punished by the state further (consider any number of padding charges a cop/DA might decide to hit them with)?
Lastly, consider the precedent being enforced: you now have your justice system interfering with legal common commerce. Where does that stop? What do we have to gain? What happens if anonymous financial transactions are disallowed?
Answer these questions, and I think you'll begin to see why this is so troubling.
That means, if tomorrow suddenly it'd be possible to launder x% more funds with the same effort, then immediately that fraud will grow by that same x%.
Also, for certain types of crime 'following the money' is pretty much the only way how they get solved. Anti money laundering laws have valid uses - of course, they definitely don't need to prescribe seizing legally obtained cash.
Indeed, the very fact that credit card fraud is effective is more proof that the existing credit system needs upgrading and that cash-only is not an unreasonable way of handling these transactions.