Hacker News Reader

You realize what this sounds like to someone without access to enough cash on hand to smooth over the insanity of our banking process?

"Screw you, I've got mine."

I certainly don't read it in that way.

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?

> 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]

Easily. Bank transactions are only cheap when

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)?

Don't you think it's a bit strange that the biggest risk to your wad of $100 bills, as you drive down the highway, is not criminal robbers, but the police?

Of course it's strange - and wrong.

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.

So, what is the actual harm of letting it slide?

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.

For certain large types of crime such as fraud of stolen creditcard data and others, the only bottleneck is the ability to launder the stolen money - with the current limitations, it generally requires recruiting (scamming) 'mules' to do your laundering for you in limited volumes.

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.

And yet it seems that the headlines are dominated by "The Terrorists" and "The Evil Drugs Lords", not "Surprisingly Annoying Credit Card Fraudsters".

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.

> 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.

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.