Are "undocumented immigrants" persons?

[Grizzly Adams]

So these airport seizures are done by the customs for fun ?

Or might they be done because the people carrying that money failed to satisfactorily explain it ?

False dilemma. As I've stated multiple times, CBP is perfectly willing to, and regularly does, seize currency when it is undeclared or if there is probable cause to believe it has an unlawful source. What they don't do is seize based on nothing more than mere suspicion. Nowhere have you established otherwise.

Please elaborate of what reasons customs may have had.

I've already told you. Undeclared currency in excess of $10,000 is subject to seizure when crossing the border. They can also seize (or more likely detain) based on probable cause of unlawful activity.

Remember what the web page said:

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

So not talking about known criminals/smugglers or people with long criminal records...

You don't need any criminal record to fail to declare currency over $10,000. It happens every day. Also, what a law firm's advertisement says about the clientele they have represented and hope to represent in the future isn't exactly persuasive. They are unlikely to get many customers if they instead state that CBP action results "in the seizure of millions of dollars from guilty-as-**** smugglers every year." Potential clients will probably be more likely to hire lawyers who don't give the appearance of believing they are guilty at the outset.

To repeat again:

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

That's a pretty big "shred"

I note it says not one word in there about CBP being the seizing authority.

So you agree that a policeman, in some states, can seize cash on mere suspicion, but a customs agent at the border cannot ?

This is what I've been saying the whole ****ing time! Why are you confused?

Please provide the criteria you believe a customs agent must meet in order to seize goods/cash

Failing to declare, and probable cause of unlawful activity. Like I've said more than once. (Note the strikethrough on the "goods" because we're not talking about merchandise.)

And a customs agent can demand evidence from you of domestic purchase (ie a receipt) on MERE SUSPISCION and if you don't have it on you (does anyone after the day of purchase) it will be seized

Where do you dig this crap up? I'm not kidding. What is your experience with this process, besides your "friend with a Rolux?" At the BAREST of minimums, a CBP officer must have a reasonable suspicion (NOT mere suspicion) prior to detaining merchandise.

Cash is EXACTLY the same, if you fail to satisfy the customs agent, it will be seized. Hence the quote from that attorney's web page:

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

Astonishingly (or not, to someone who knows what they're talking about), no mention is made of CBP in that quote. Even if they do talk about CBP, I find it utterly unsurprising that they would describe someone who failed to declare currency as "innocent," even though they really aren't.

Nope, you can regain property that's been "seized"
Customs don't borrow stuff from you, if they "detain" your good/cash...you absolutely do NOT get it back unless or until you go to court and PROVE tax was paid on the goods/cash.

False. Seized items can be recovered, though the process is more complicated. Items that are simply detained do not require court action at all. Again, where are you getting this garbage? Or are you just making it up, pieced together from movies you've seen?

Notice the word "seizure" above - are you claiming to know more about the law that the attorney who created that web page ?

I'm claiming to know more about the context of the words than you do.

Please provide one example where a person has satisfied a customs agent by providing proof of domestic purchase when returning to the USA with an expebsive item.

It happens every day when people aren't charged duty on their previously-purchased Louis Vuitton handbags and Rolex watches at a port of entry.

 

[Rich2018]

...what they don't do is seize based on nothing more than mere suspicion. Nowhere have you established otherwise.

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

Does it not mean that "innocent" people have been victimized and wronged against ?

Go ahead and specify the reasons a customs official has for seizing goods/cash

I've already told you. Undeclared currency in excess of $10,000 is subject to seizure when crossing the border. They can also seize (or more likely detain) based on probable cause of unlawful activity.

That's what they CAN do
Not what justifies such action
As I've already told you - it can be (and often is) on mere suspicion

You don't need any criminal record to fail to declare currency over $10,000...

No-one said you did need one

...what a law firm's advertisement says about the clientele they have represented and hope to represent in the future isn't exactly persuasive...

It is persuasive if those innocent people are subsequently able to prove their innocence

You're wriggling like a hooked fish now...the web page states:

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

So you're suggesting this is a lie and that millions of dollars are NOT seized from innocent people every year ?

I note it says not one word in there about CBP being the seizing authority.

It says "Law Enforcement" as an umbrella for police, DEA, CBP, TSA, etc

But a brief internet search revealed a site that's more specific:

"Did you know that federal agents are seizing more U.S. Currency (cash and money) from travelers at the airport? In currency seizure cases, the federal agents work for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). "

Attorney for Seizure of U.S. Currency at Airport in New York

Help from an attorney if agents with CBP, HSI, DEA, or NYPD seized your U.S. Currency or cash at an airport in New York including JFK Airport or LaGuardia Airport.

www.rochelleberliner.com

.

So here's another webpage on which you can publicly doubt its integrity

This is what I've been saying the whole ****ing time! Why are you confused?

That you think that a policeman can seize cash on mere suspicion, but a customs official cannot

Failing to declare, and probable cause of unlawful activity.

Explain how failing to declare gives a custom agent suspicion, but nothing else
You wouldn't declare a $10,000 Rolex, that you took with you...but it can STILL be seized on mere suspicion
And what would would "probable cause of unlawful activity ?

Where do you dig this crap up? I'm not kidding. What is your experience with this process, besides your "friend with a Rolux?" At the BAREST of minimums, a CBP officer must have a reasonable suspicion (NOT mere suspicion) prior to detaining merchandise.

Nope, a customs agent just needs mere suspicion
And it wasn't my friend, it is a case I am aware of, of which I saw an investigative report.

"CBP has substantial power to search imports and exports and exclude, detain and/or seize and destroy counterfeit and infringing products. ... When CBP suspects that goods are infringing, the goods are detained for up to thirty days — during which time CBP will determine whether to formally “seize” the goods. "

Customs & Border Protection

Harness Dickey is an elite international IP firm with 100+ IP attorneys covering scientific technologies representing the world's technology leaders

www.hdp.com

.

False. Seized items can be recovered, though the process is more complicated. Items that are simply detained do not require court action at all.

Do you have reading skills deficiency because I'm sure I said "you can regain property that's been "seized"
However you might be correct in regaining goods that customs deem "detained" and not seized by offering them the required proof (without which they will not release your goods). The case I saw mentioned having to engage a lawyer

If a policeman seized your cash, you WILL need to go to court to get it back

I'm claiming to know more about the context of the words than you do.

And seemingly of attorneys at law who use the word "seize"

It happens every day when people aren't charged duty on their previously-purchased Louis Vuitton handbags and Rolex watches at a port of entry.

So not hard to cite one instance then ?
Or just something else that you regard as true because you claim it to be so.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

Does it not mean that "innocent" people have been victimized and wronged against ?

Again, this does not mention CBP. Civil asset forfeiture is abused inside the US by local law enforcement agencies, and innocent people are certainly subjected to it there. You have supplied NO evidence this happens at the border, by CBP, for no reason beyond mere suspicion.

Go ahead and specify the reasons a customs official has for seizing goods/cash

That's what they CAN do
Not what justifies such action
As I've already told you - it can be (and often is) on mere suspicion

Guy, I don't know what it is you're having trouble understanding. The reason cash is seized by CBP is because it is undeclared or on probable cause it has an unlawful source.

The law is what justifies the action. Declaring currency in excess of $10K when crossing the border is required by law, and has been for 50 years. Not reporting the currency makes it subject to seizure and forfeiture. Because the law says so. That's how it's justified.

No-one said you did need one

You were the one who brought up people who had no long rap sheet as having their cash seized. So you certainly seem to think it has something to do with something. If you're abandoning that claim, so much the better.

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

So you're suggesting this is a lie and that millions of dollars are NOT seized from innocent people every year ?

Not at the border by US Customs & Border Protection.

It says "Law Enforcement" as an umbrella for police, DEA, CBP, TSA, etc

First: if you take only one thing away from this discussion, please let it be that TSA is not now, has never been, and with any luck never will be a "Law Enforcement" agency.

Second, it includes CBP because you say so?

"Did you know that federal agents are seizing more U.S. Currency (cash and money) from travelers at the airport? In currency seizure cases, the federal agents work for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). "

This is still basically just a law firm's commercial, but even it doesn't support you:

To seize money taken on a domestic flight, the federal agent needs "probable cause" that the money is involved in drug trafficking or money laundering. For an international flight, the federal agent can seize the money if the traveler failed to disclose carrying more than $10,000 on the FinCEN 105 Form (often called "unreported currency").

And that bolded part is what we're talking about.

Explain how failing to declare gives a custom agent suspicion, but nothing else

What? Failing to declare is the offense, finding the undeclared cash is the probable cause. It looks like you are wholly unaware of levels of suspicion in a law enforcement context. They are, from least to greatest: no/mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, probable cause. Once CBP discovers the undeclared currency, you've leapt directly to probable cause.

And what would would "probable cause of unlawful activity ?

Two examples are a warrant for the person's arrest (in which case the currency would likely be detained for a later determination instead of seized outright) or a person intercepted entering the US with narcotics hidden in their luggage who also had $8,000 in his pockets.

"CBP has substantial power to search imports and exports and exclude, detain and/or seize and destroy counterfeit and infringing products. ... When CBP suspects that goods are infringing, the goods are detained for up to thirty days — during which time CBP will determine whether to formally “seize” the goods. "

Your Googling isn't serving you well. You've supplied no evidence whatsoever that mere suspicion is sufficient for seizure of currency (or merchandise) at the border. Then, in an effort to support your "I heard this one story" anecdote about a Rolex and duty, you pull up a citation to a law firm that references seizures based on intellectual property rights violations. For the record, companies are very interested in protecting their brands, and assist CBP in determining whether importations are genuine or counterfeit. That is how reasonable suspicion and (eventually) probable cause are developed for that type of seizure.

So not hard to cite one instance then ?

You mean all the instances that no one reports because literally nothing happened?

 

[Rich2018]

Again, this does not mention CBP...

Read on

..the reason cash is seized by CBP is because it is undeclared or on probable cause it has an unlawful source...

Granted if the person smuggling the cash was a known smuggler/drug dealer or they'd hidden the cash in a concealed compartment in their luggage, that would be suspicious
But even if you declare the cash, it can still be seized

But we're talking about "innocent people" - so what's the "probable cause" - it's mere suspicion (and as already explained, that's all a police officer needs in some states)
Moreover a customs officer can seize your $10,000 Rolex on mere suspicion alone that you'd bought it overseas and not paid tax on it. Why do you think customs require more justification for cash ?

And as stated, an INANIMATE object (like a Rolex or a bundle of cash) is presumed guilty until proven innocent, unlike a person

I don't know where your mental disconnect is

Not at the border by US Customs & Border Protection.

Those web pages state otherwise

Frankly, if you're try to say you know more about the law than the attorneys who created those web pages, you look ridiculous

Here's another one:


" We are the nation’s leading law firm focusing on bulk cash seizure at regional and international airports in the USA, Amtrak train stations and on the nation’s highways by the Drug Enforcement Administration, US Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation which become the subject of federal civil seizure in the federal United States District Court. Other nations available on request.

Get Your Money Back! Cash Seized by DEA, Customs, Homeland Security?

The United States government seized more than $1 billion in bitcoins related to the shut down darknet website Silk Road. It is suing for the funds to be

www.cashseizurelaw.com

if you take only one thing away from this discussion, please let it be that TSA is not now, has never been, and with any luck never will be a "Law Enforcement" agency.

But they do support and train law enforcement agencies

...it includes CBP because you say so?

No, because the web page said so, here it is again:

"Did you know that federal agents are seizing more U.S. Currency (cash and money) from travelers at the airport? In currency seizure cases, the federal agents work for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). "

This is still basically just a law firm's commercial, but even it doesn't support you..

Three web pages now, all speaking about cash being seized at airports by customs

How big do you require the font size ?

Your Googling isn't serving you well.

And I doubt it will as you clearly don't read them

You mean all the instances that no one reports because literally nothing happened?

No, I mean all the instances that you say are so common, yet cannot cite a single one, let alone offer a shred of evidence.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But even if you declare the cash, it can still be seized

Possibly, but not for reasons based on "mere suspicion."

But we're talking about "innocent people" - so what's the "probable cause" - it's mere suspicion

I already goddamned told you. If something is based on probable cause, it is impossible for it to be based on mere suspicion. And CBP doesn't seize cash based on mere suspicion. You still haven't cited a specific instance of it. All you've provided is a vague and broad reference to all "law enforcement" and all cash seizures and claimed that means CBP conducts a specific kind of cash seizure. That doesn't cut it, kid.

Those web pages state otherwise

I haven't seen any page yet cited that claims CBP seizes currency based on mere suspicion. None. When you find one, we can talk.

Frankly, if you're try to say you know more about the law than the attorneys who created those web pages, you look ridiculous

Once, again, I'm only claiming to know more about the law than you do, and it's reflected in your inability to comprehend what the pages are actually saying.

Here's another one:
" We are the nation’s leading law firm focusing on bulk cash seizure at regional and international airports in the USA, Amtrak train stations and on the nation’s highways by the Drug Enforcement Administration, US Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation which become the subject of federal civil seizure in the federal United States District Court. Other nations available on request.

You... you do realize that seizures can occur at international airports that are unrelated to CBP, right? Domestic flights do operate from them. And yes, CBP does seize currency at airports, but not based on mere suspicion. And again nothing you've presented says otherwise.

No, because the web page said so, here it is again:

"Did you know that federal agents are seizing more U.S. Currency (cash and money) from travelers at the airport? In currency seizure cases, the federal agents work for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). "

Again, no one is saying CBP doesn't seize cash at airports. But they don't do it on mere suspicion. This quote doesn't even suggest otherwise.

Three web pages now, all speaking about cash being seized at airports by customs

How big do you require the font size ?

Size matters not. It's the content that counts. You can blow up the font as big as you like, and nothing yet presented says CBP seizes currency based on mere suspicion.

No, I mean all the instances that you say are so common, yet cannot cite a single one, let alone offer a shred of evidence.

Let's put this in another, even more absurd context. I claim that thousands of nuclear warheads aren't detonated every day. You dispute it, and then demand I should be able to easily cite instances of nuclear weapons not detonating, since it is "so common." In a more realistic context, your logic suggests no cocaine crosses the border without being intercepted because I can't cite a story of cocaine getting through. Guess what: things not getting seized doesn't make the news, just like nuclear weapons just sitting in a silo not getting launched doesn't make the news. But, like cocaine, expensive articles cross the border daily without incident. One would have to be stupid to think otherwise.

 

[Rich2018]

Possibly, but not for reasons based on "mere suspicion."

Yes, that's all a customs agent needs

A customs agent can see the Rolex on your wrist and demand that you prove that you've paid tax on it
Same foe if you were carrying a large amount of cash (whether you declare it or not)

I already goddamned told you. If something is based on probable cause, it is impossible for it to be based on mere suspicion...

Except it's not base on probable cause

Where is your evidence that it is ?

I haven't seen any page yet cited that claims CBP seizes currency based on mere suspicion.

To remind you of what you're clearly not comprehending:

"...civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

So customs apply it too broadly .... innocent people
Explain how probable cause results in seizures from innocent people.

Once, again, I'm only claiming to know more about the law than you do...

No, you're claiming that those web pages from attorneys contain false information
And clearly you do not know more about the law than them, or evidently even me.

Size matters not. It's the content that counts. You can blow up the font as big as you like, and nothing yet presented says CBP seizes currency based on mere suspicion.

"innocent people"

...I claim that thousands of nuclear warheads aren't detonated every day. You dispute it, and then demand I should be able to easily cite instances of nuclear weapons not detonating, since it is "so common." ...

But if "thousands" of nuclear warheads were detonated "every day" you'd have EVIDENCE of that - you know radiation and stuff
The explosion at the Ukrainian nuclear power station at Chernobyl, contaminated farmland as far as the river Rhine. So yes you would be able t prove it if "thousands" of nuclear warheads were detonated "every day"

Now back to your unsubstantiated claim for which you cannot produce evidence.....