Posted on 02/05/2015 7:18:20 PM PST by Kaslin
IRS practiced a ‘seize first, ask questions later’ strategy
The Internal Revenue Service seized hundreds of millions of dollars from thousands of bank accounts over the past decade, often without proof of any criminal wrongdoing, according to a report released by the Institute for Justice this week.
The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, said the IRS practiced a “seize first, ask questions later” strategy when it seized $242 million in more than 2,500 cases from 2005 to 2012.
All of those seizures were for “structuring” violations, an obscure rule intended to keep money launderers, terrorists, and other criminals from making small deposits to evade federal bank reporting laws. But the Institute for Justice and other civil liberties advocates say the IRS has used the rule to target the bank accounts of law-abiding citizens with no other evidence of a crime.
“The IRS’s forfeiture activity exposes the rotten core of federal civil forfeiture law,” Institute for Justice attorney Scott Bullock said in a statement. “Allowing law enforcement to take property from people without convicting them of a crime and then profit from the seizure will inevitably lead to abuse.”
In October, the New York Times highlighted the case of Carol Hinders, an Iowa woman runs a small, cash-only Mexican restaurant.
Two IRS agents showed up at Hinder’s door last year and informed her that the agency was seizing $33,000 from her bank account for structuring violations, a law she wasn’t even aware of. She was never accused of a crime.
Facing backlash after the front-page New York Times story, federal prosecutors quietly dropped their case against Hinders in December.
According to the Institute for Justice, at least a third of the IRS’ asset forfeiture cases between 2005 and 2012 were, like Hinders’, based solely a series of cash transactions under $10,000, with no other criminal activity alleged.
Four out of five of those cases were civil, not criminal, meaning the IRS had to meet a lower standard of evidence to secure a seizure.
Even then, nearly half of the money seized was not ultimately forfeited. But it took a year of legal wrangling on average for owners to win their money back. Taken altogether, property owners face a system heavily weighted against them at every step.
The IRS did not immediately return a request for comment. However, in a statement to the Washington Post, the agency said it will no longer indiscriminately target bank accounts.
“We recognize that small businesses and other taxpayers often make deposits under $10,000 without any intent to avoid the reporting requirements,” the statement said. “After conducting a review of structuring cases, the IRS concluded that it will focus its limited resources on cases where evidence indicates that the structured funds are derived from illegal sources.”
The Justice Department and IRS have both announced they would curb their asset forfeiture practices following a year of critical news reports on cases that swept up regular citizens.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced earlier in January that the Department of Justice would curb its equitable sharing program that funnels proceeds from forfeitures to state and local police departments across the country.
Meanwhile in Congress, Sen. Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) and Rep. Tim Walberg (R., Mich.) reintroduced the FAIR Act in the Senate and House. The bill would strengthen protections for property seized under asset forfeiture programs.
The issue also cropped up last week in a congressional hearing for Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee for attorney general. Lynch, a federal prosecutor, testified that asset forfeiture was a “wonderful tool.”
Just practicing for when they seize the peasants’ IRA’s and 401ks.
Ping!
So, how many of the first ten amendments to the Constitution does the government have to break before we consider it broken? A few? More than half? All of them?
What constitution?
Tyrants know no bounds.
“....seized hundreds of millions of dollars from thousands of bank accounts over the past decade....”
.
So, the practice started under Bush already?
And we seem to have a bumper crop of tyrants wrecking American life of late.
Quite illegal, but quite routine.
When will the people stand up?
_________________________________________________________________
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (or BSA, or otherwise known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act) requires financial institutions in the United States to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering.
Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
Asset forfeiture laws allow us to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets and more prosecutors in court.
In the last 5 years alone, the Justice Department shared over half a billion dollars in forfeited assets with State and local law enforcement.
Ping
this report is so funny. the irs has been doing this for years. they issue paper to business called irs levy and the business either think it is legal or just don’t want to be targeted. the irs uses the term levy from the common law levy and distraint. here is the so called law
26 U.S. Code § 6331 - Levy and distraint
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331
on the page the links go to 27 not 26 cfr there ain’t nothing the the cfr about taking peoples stuff because it is against the law.
27 CFR - Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms
27 CFR Part 70 - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
these are impeachable offenses to every elected and non elected official of every government that touches this tainted script/money
“The IRS did not immediately return a request for comment. However, in a statement to the Washington Post, the agency said it will no longer indiscriminately target bank accounts.”
How nice of them now that some sunshine has been blasted up their a**es.
Oh, ok ok , you caught us. We’ll stop. Har Har Har rib-jab.
It's very clear that more than half; in fact all but the third (which is debatable) has been harmed by the War on Drugs, a good portion of them in multiple ways.
From an older post:
Indeed, much of the problem can be laid at the feet of the acceptance of the legitimacy of the War on Drugs; I'd go so far as to say anyone advocating the War on Drugs cannot be a Constitutionalist — because the War on Drugs has damaged 90% of the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”In other words:Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!
Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs (See: Employment Division v. Smith), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed. So, that’s 90% of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If that's not cause for concern, and impetus for stopping the War on Drugs then is there anything that cannot be done in its name?
Thought you might like to see this.
Back in the mid 1970's maybe 1980 one guy my sibling once knew made the bad mistake of trying to grow a field of Pot. He saw the chopper fly over and the dummy harvested it and put it in his barn. This was when Pot was $20 an ounce. The Sheriff Deputies came in and confiscated the Pot. They arrested him and I think he was fined maybe 30 days in the Pokey and that was it. He still lives on the land. Today as I understand it the price is too the moon, many, many times more potent than that of a few decades ago, and has made the drug cartels rich. What a success huh?
Once government saw confiscation as a Tool to enhance departmental budgets the abuses of innocents began and it hit everyone.
One stretch of I-75 in my state was real bad LEO was pulling people over for trivial reasons then doing searches. People who were law abiding and likely thought sure go ahead I've done nothing wrong got searched. Suddenly a person carrying several thousand dollars headed to an Auction became notorious criminal suspects loosing their cash and vehicle with the guilty till proven innocent and we still keep it policy prevailing.
It backfired. A deputy and a passenger were killed and two persons charged over the matter I have forgotten what it was even over. A routine call I think. The deputy I think was serving a process. There was so much mistrust in the agency that they walked in a trial by jury.
Way too many "TOOLS" have been invented and allowed and they never seem to have enough to suit them. One of the most abused Crimes Against The State which now is a Moving Violation serious offense and can trigger searches is of all things the beloved Seat Belt Law. They pushed hard for that one and use and abuse it. I doubt one in a hundred cops can see into a moving car well enough to see if a person is belted in. I've even seen it on arrest charges on a nearby county 24 hour arrest list. Why is it on there? I'm betting it was the so called reason for the stop.
Law Enforcement and Government Agency forfeitures laws need to be rescinded except for one sole purpose. If an innocent party suffers injury in a crime and perp is convicted the perps property should be auctioned for victim compensation. As far as I'm concerned that is the only legitimate reason I see for confiscation.
Farmers are now having to worry about some grower using their land for a Pot Patch and many times the ones raiding tie up assets first ask questions later.
Our Tax Codes need to be changed to where it is none of governments business how much money a person has in savings. No one should have to live in fear of any government agencies abuses of powers they have slowing acquired over the past several decades. Many also need their police powers and their armed agents rescinded. No one should be denied due process of a trial and the right to face their accusers before their property including bank accounts are tied up or confiscated except if there is a very high risk of flight. Very few cases fit that.
A multi federal agency visit to a business should not be done with armed officers unless they have done a violent felony. When was the last time a major corporation opened fire on federal agencies coming in to seize their books? Yet every agency thinks they need armed officers? One event stand out in my mind is a recent raid on my state governors family ran corporation. Agents showed up armed. Was someone in the office going to paper cut them? Or was it to intimidate?
Shame on Congress and the courts for allowing it to get this bad to start with.
Indeed we do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
