Because if you have structured your transactions , then indeed they have proven your guilt.
But of course in a Court of Law, the burden is still on the Prosecution. Ignorance is actually a pretty good excuse here.
I have no idea of what you are getting at.
You do not have to respond to the banks questions other than to ID yourself.
The purpose question will likely reduce suspicion. But you can say “I’d prefer not to answer”. But refusing to fill out the from and getting angry will only make you appear more suspicious.
So we have arrived at a point where a desire for privacy makes one appear suspicious. Wonderful. There are a lot of times when I am glad to be old.
No, a angry refusal to fill out a required form makes you suspicious.
Saying “I prefer that remain private” on optional questions does not.
When you are pulled over by the Police and they issue you a ticket, would it be Ok to scrawl “refused” on the ticket and refuse to sign?
Yeah, but I didn’t have to fill out a form or have a teller insist I tell her what I’m doing with my money like she’s my Mother. (I think that’s what pissed me off the most. Had she just handed me the form and said their security department asked for this it wouldn’t of rubbed me the wrong way so much. It was her insistant tone that got to me!) I’ll buy all the penny whistles and Moon Pies I want with my allowance, Thank you very little!
A couple years ago, I was at the post office, and the clerk got the postmaster when an elderly man came in to buy some money orders, and started pulling thick bundles of $100 bills out of his overalls. I didn’t stick around to see what eventually happened.
More recently, I was at a rummage sale that is dubbed “This City’s Biggest Rummage Sale” (it’s for the symphony and lasts several days) and overheard some of the volunteers chatting. One of them said that when she was in charge of the deposits a few years earlier, she took one day’s receipts to the bank, and had to fill out some paperwork and answer a barrage of questions because she brought in more than $10,000 in cash. Most likely, this was the first day’s sales (they charge admission, and people come from all over to get the goodies), and it was a shock to her to have to do this because she had never heard of such a thing. She was mostly afraid of getting robbed; nothing like this had ever occurred to her.
No, I don’t screw around with cops if I’m getting a ticket. Not exactly the same thing as getting my own money out of my own account.
So I can get privacy if I ask for it politely enough, I see. Ok then.
Well, you do have to fill out and sign the form. But the reason is optional. Put something like “prefer not to state”.
… except for the pesky fact that this isn’t relevant.
OK, sure, granted, it isn’t probable cause. Are you seriously suggesting that therefore money laundering should be eagerly promoted?
That’s obviously not a reason. Why should it be acceptable?
Reason is optional. The feds do not require a reason.
Our UTC’s here don’t require signatures so that’s a moot point here. But in cases like in the booking room if a subject refuses to sign when their property is inventoried they can refuse. We just write “RTS” on the space. Can’t legally make them sign anything. They still get their stuff back when released.
In CA, signing the ticket is a promise to appear, dont sign, you go to jail.
by “go to jail” do you mean you’re booked and released or you have to sit on your ass until you see a judge, or what?
Booked and released for infractions.
Hmm. I kinda sorta knew this but it’s weird. Violator is identified by DL, who cares if he signs or not, right?
During my first career I was a Sheriffs Deputy. Served a lot of civil process as you probably are quite aware of. We had little cards that we asked recipients to sign when served. They’d get included with the affidavit we’d fill out after a serve. Even people in the legal profession that got served daily would never sign them. Couldn’t do anything about it.
Just shows how every state has different rules/laws.
Not that it was off-base to begin with, but no, it doesn’t matter a whit whether it’s a prosecutor or a police investigator or a bank who’s asking nosey questions to investigate the possibility of illegal transactions. It shouldn’t fall on you to help them.
I said as much in my first post. Yes, you don’t need to cooperate, but it’s unfortunate when you are put into a position where you feel you must in order to allay suspicions that it’s not your job to prove.
No one said anything about getting angry.
Really? Hmm, here are some snippets from the OP (with names of the smilies used):
Psychonaut, maybe you never said anything about getting angry, but that doesn’t mean that no one said anything about getting angry.
There are economists who say that paper money (something like 80 percent of all $100 bills, which are almost as numerous as $1 bills—http://www.visualcapitalist.com/many-u-s-dollar-bills-circulation/) primarily facilitates crimes like robbery, illegal drug trafficking, human trafficking, bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion.