Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
Nov. 18--Ordinary businesses, from bicycle shops to bookstores to bowling alleys, are being pressed into service on the home front in the war on terrorism.
Under the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush late last month, they soon will be required to monitor their customers and report "suspicious transactions" to the Treasury Department -- though most businesses may not be aware of this.
Buried in the more than 300 pages of the new law is a provision that "any person engaged in a trade or business" has to file a government report if a customer spends $10,000 or more in cash. The threshold is cumulative and applies to multiple purchases if they're somehow related -- three $4,000 pieces of furniture, for example, might trigger a filing.
Until now, only banks, thrifts, and credit unions have been required to report cash transactions to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. A handful of other businesses, including car dealers and pawnbrokers, have to file similar reports with the Internal Revenue Service.
"This is a big deal, and a big change, for the vast majority of American businesses," said Joe Rubin, chief lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce. "But I don't think anybody realizes it's happened."
The impact is less clear for consumers, although privacy advocates are uncomfortable with the thought of a massive database that could bring government scrutiny on innocent people. Immigrants and the working poor are the most likely to find themselves in the database, since they tend to use the traditional banking system the least.
"The scope of this thing is huge," said Bert Ely, a financial services consultant in Alexandria, Va. "It's going to affect literally millions of people."
The filing of so-called suspicious activity reports, though, is only the latest in a series of law enforcement moves the government has made in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. And so far, the filing requirement has been overshadowed by debate over the other changes.
The Patriot Act signed into law Oct. 26, for example, gives the government a vast arsenal of surveillance tools, easier access to personal information, and increased authority to detain and deport noncitizens. House and Senate negotiators came to terms Thursday on a bill that would add 28,000 employees to the federal payroll in an effort to bolster airport security, and Attorney General John Ashcroft has said he is reorganizing the Justice Department and the FBI to focus on counterterrorism efforts.
As for the business-filing requirement, specifics about what companies have to do and when they have to do it still need to be worked out. The Treasury Department has until March 25 -- the date the Patriot Act becomes law -- to issue regulations about how to put the new rules into practice.
"The law itself doesn't go into any detail, because you'd presume that's what the Treasury regulations are for," said Victoria Fimea, senior counsel at the American Council of Life Insurers. "And the devil, of course, is in the details."
When he signed the legislation, President Bush said the new rules were designed to "put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling, and money laundering." The problem, he and others have said, was keeping tabs on the billions of dollars that flow outside the traditional banking system and across national borders each year.
Money launderers often disguise the source of their money by using cash to buy pricey things. Later, they can resell the products and move the money into a bank account -- at which point it has been laundered, or made to look legitimate, by the aboveboard sale.
Making a series of transactions just below the $10,000 filing threshold is also illegal under the new law if it's done to keep a business from contacting the government.
Financial services companies such as banks, insurers, and stock brokerages face a higher standard under the new law than other businesses. In addition to the filing requirements, they have to take steps such as naming a compliance officer and implementing a comprehensive program to train employees about how to spot money laundering.
Unlike other businesses, though, most financial services companies already have a process in place to deal with government regulation.
"Certainly for the bigger [insurance] companies, they most likely are already tooled up for this," said Fimea. "For other companies, this creates a whole new landscape."
James Rockett, a San Francisco lawyer who represents banks and insurance companies in disputes with regulators, said he's skeptical the authorities will get any useful information from reports filed by nonfinancial companies.
"You're trying to turn an untrained populace into the monitors of money laundering activity," Rockett said. "If you want to stop this, it's got to be done with police work, not tracking consumers' buying habits."
Voices opposing any of the new law-enforcement measures appear to be in the minority, however. For now, at least, few people and few companies want to be perceived as being terrorist sympathizers.
"In a political sense, it would have been very hard for us to go to Congress in this case and loudly argue that the legislation shouldn't include nonfinancial-services guys," said Rubin, of the US Chamber of Commerce. "Everybody wants to help and to stop money laundering right now."
Scott Bernard Nelson can be reached by e-mail at nelson@globe.com.
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see where you have added much. You say $10,000 cash transaction in one day....
so what did we miss?....that you have to keep a record for a year? You may be irritated at the law...but don't take it out on us,
we were asking questions...we didn't write the law.
To: Dialup Llama
Got news for everybody. This law has been in effect since the 1980's. Go try and buy a Lamborghini in Miami with cash. The law was put into effect decades ago to fight drug traffickers and their money launders. The same $10,000 reporting requirement for banks has been in effect for retailers with large ticket items like: boats, homes, cars, planes, etc. Don't blame it on W.
# 4 by bpjam
************
Well, that's comforting, bpjam.
You say that it doesn't matter that this un-Constitutional "War on Terror" violates our rights, because those rights were already violated by the un-Constitutional "War on Drugs."
I don't blame only Bush. I blame it on all Republicans, those steadfast "defenders" of our liberty. Our citizens trusted them, and our citizens were betrayed.
Let me see your DL and Passport if you wish to continue trying to sound both principled and posturing as a protector of individual rights...
It must really irritate you when they come in with $10,000 worth of pre 64 US coins...:)
Shall I explain what it is about this view that's so repellant? Would anyone understand if I pointed out that government has successfully engineered a shift from a presumption of innocence, to a presumption of guilt? What was formerly a burden of proof on government to show WHY it needs to invade our privacy, has been turned inside out: now "law 'n' order" cultists are bleating that a preference for privacy is prima facie evidence of guilt.
Slaves.
I am confused...the only check exchange I know about is where you give them your check...they hold it until payday and then cash it...You never make money on this deal...You lose a LOT OF MONEY....what kind of check exchange is there where you make money? If you can tell me that, I'll try to answer your question. On the information I have now....the answer is NO.
Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
# 9 by boston_liberty
************
I'm with you, boston_liberty,
but most here on this forum
choose to close their mind
to such un-popular ideas.
As I recall, we fought a war against fascism in WWII (funny how things work out, isn't it?)
You ask an excellent question.........and most politely. I appreciate that.
In short, unnecessary. No one is really looking to amend the Constitution. No one is looking to suspend the Constitution. This is war, pure and simple, and there are things that must be done in war to ensure victory and to protect one's people. I'm eagle-eyed when it comes to attacks on my rights and on the Constitution........believe me. I don't sense some long-term, nefarious interests or goals here. We have to kick terrorist ass, wherever it is. If that means some inconvenience as we do it (people can crow all they want; that's what most are really crowing about..), so be it. As to the security of our Constitution as the supreme law of the land? I don't see that threatened. I also don't give a damn, purely in this context, who succeeds G.W. in the White House. The Constitution WILL prevail. If we have to give our law enforcement agencies..........local, State, and Federal............additional leeway to chase down the Bad Guys in such a "war" to ensure the continuation of our way of life, then I consider that a small price to pay.
AND, my friend, as I pointed out above..........never, EVER forget who those same folks work for. I sure as hell won't.
You're quite right...........and as I recall, we won.
Allow me to add that I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're FAR too intelligent to even hint that this in some way equates to "fascism".
I keep waiting for some very important things to happen. We are almost a year into this administration - in a war - as you have so eloquently pointed out and I'm concerned about the length of time to fill the political appointments. That means I am hot as napalm with Joe Biden and his committee stalling judicial appointments and I am hot as heck about the slow pace with which the administration has put forward their nominees.
I think the Whitehouse got suprised on this one. In the WH's desire for 'loyalty' purity they sacrificed the political capital to push through their appointments. Then when traitor Jeffords switched they lost more ground. The summer was squandered and now we're in a war. I wrote about it a month ago and the problem is still there. At some point somebody in the Whitehouse is going to have to start spending some of this 90% favorability rating to get the people in to the jobs they have won via the election.
Why do we have Clinton Appointee's enforcing Bush Administration policies or failing to!. Than when a disaster strikes, i.e. the Klamath River debacle, the NW Firefighters death via the lack of aerial water support, the total failure of the INS, etc. etc. etc. - those disasters are written off as truly belonging to the previous administration.
When do we get the government we elected?
When do we get the full accountability for both good and bad that happens to land on one desk? I think GW has done an absolutely marvelous job as President. IMHO he is probably being truly guided by his prayer life. Cheney may be the best VP in my lifetime. Laura Bush is easily the best First Lady. Having proudly said those kudo's I think the RINO's that run congress are a tremendous threat to our liberty. The RINO's within the administration and the Clinton appointees that continue to hold Key positions in this administration are doubly troublesome to me. Because they are painted as belonging to W and they daily act and administer as if belonging to Clinton.
The rabid Bush supporters reject any form of criticism and the security bust and decisions that embarrass the administration continue.
When the administration tries for treason the democratic congressional staffers, Clinton appointees, and other undesirables for their leaks to the press and terrible judgement I will be comfortable that the adults that are in office have not left the keys to the car with the teenagers from the previous administration.
I am anxious for that to happen. After all - there's a war on!
Regards,
TS
BINGO!!! Bankers, feds, cops. The lot of 'em.
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.