
A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it - dankohn1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/31/a-64-year-old-put-his-life-savings-in-his-carry-on-u-s-customs-took-it-without-charging-him-with-a-crime/
======
lewis500
Only as I get older do I realize how incredibly bad elements of law
enforcement in the US can be, and legally so. Few cops and agents are bad, but
it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the
bad elements. Civil asset forfeiture is overwhelmingly unpopular, but when
states try to reform it the law enforcement groups rally around it mightily.
Essentially they want the right to steal money because they need money; nobody
really makes a sincere argument the situation is any different than that. In
Alabama they recently tried to reform it. In an op ed by the leaders of
district attorneys and sheriffs, the authors wrote “What incentive would local
police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these
operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?” I dunno: it
seems like if they are professional cops they should just solve crimes and
such that seem important; by “investing manpower” they are not investing like
a firm does but pulling resources from elsewhere to spend trying to take
things from oblivious people. Also in alabama, sheriffs are allowed to take
extra money from the food programs at the county jail, and they buy themselves
vacation homes this way. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-sheriff-
legally-pockete...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-sheriff-legally-
pocketed-750k-from-inmate-food-funds-bought-beach-house/)

~~~
cf498
As an outside perspective, how do you quantify, that only "Few cops and agents
are bad". If your job contains robbing people, I would rationally word it the
other way around. Hopefully there are quite a few cops who dont follow the
rules and subvert the system of organized theft. But if you take policies like
civil forfeiture or for example police union cards for family members this
sounds like organized crime to quite a few people not living in the US.

~~~
mirimir
Well, it's criminal, and it's organized.

Classic quote from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand
something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

------
seibelj
It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to
society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has
solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government
should be applied very carefully, and probably as the _last_ solution, after
we see the failures of non-government solutions.

The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destroy any
life, and seize all assets and livelihood if they desire to, even in America.
But at least in America it is possible to sue the government and _maybe_
rectify the situation, but you have to be wealthy or get a powerful ally like
the Washington Post on your side.

If it upsets you that the US government is able to hurt an immigrant like is
discussed in this article, then you should take a very skeptical view of
government actions and also people who advocate giving the government more
power. After all, many people who loved Obama's expansion of executive
authority now recoil as the enemy party's control of the government reverses
his non-congressional approved decisions.

The more power you give to the government, the less power the citizenry has.

~~~
3pt14159
Not last. Not first. Not all powerful. Not feckless.

Americans act like their government is representative of governments. It
isn't. They act like everything needs to be invented there. It doesn't. They
believe that America is the greatest country in the world. It isn't.

If people in America just stopped to look around at how other countries do
things they'd be doubly as well run. Most parts of Europe, Japan, Canada, and
many other places are well run and have a great deal of governmental
involvement. America is hobbled by its own broken political system that nobody
would replicate if they were starting from scratch today.

It's essentially the PHP of government systems. Dominant, but broken.

~~~
orf
A thousand times this. I'm not saying the UK is some shining beacon of how to
run a country but I do think overall our governmental systems are pretty
_sensible_. I think being sensible might be a stereotypical English trait, but
it's true.

For example you have to comply with the _spirit_ of a law, not the exact text.
Also our QC's are pretty level headed and the same goes for our police force.
Nobody is overly nitpicky about things, and when they are it's sensible. At
least in my experience, YMMV.

US could learn a lot if they looked outward, but I don't think that's in their
nature.

~~~
refurb
You mean like arresting people when they say something the gov't doesn't like?
[1] I'll take a pass, thank you.

[1][https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-
offensive-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-
facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html)

~~~
iforgotpassword
I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of
actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom".

If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious,
threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure
a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.

~~~
wetpaws
I would prefer being harrased and bullied rather than having to live in a
country that has a legal power to punish me for what I say.

~~~
arcticbull
You can absolutely get punished for what you say in the US -- freedom of
speech was long ago recognized as anything but absolute. You can't yell fire
in a crowded theater. Obscenity (as defined in Miller v. California) is not
protected by the constitution. You can't lie under oath. You can't
deliberately tell lies about people (Libel). The First Amendment doesn’t
protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government (Dennis v.
United States). House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest
anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity.

The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset
from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States.
And it's really not that different, is it?

~~~
opo
>...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Wrong.

[https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-
ha...](https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-
apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/)

>...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just
offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United
States.

It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any
country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.

~~~
jakelazaroff
…right. That article bemoans the use of "shouting fire in a crowded theater"
as a rhetorical device, but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such
speech.

(IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-
heart_murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder))

~~~
opo
>...but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech.

Well, the article discusses the origin of the idea that "shouting fire in a
crowded theater" is illegal. It also points out that Brandenburg v. Ohio is
the actual relevant decision.

For more context on the Brandenberg decision:

>...Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at
a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d
called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to
violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had
broken the law.

>...Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of
ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a
specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the
First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite
illegal action.

>With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had
introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and
present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the
law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

>So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely
shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an
unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will
have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the
law, even if it risks others’ safety.

[http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-
general/...](http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-
it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html)

~~~
jakelazaroff
The death of a human being can certainly be regarded as unlawful. See Michelle
Carter's conviction for encouraging Conrad Roy to commit suicide [1] despite
the fact that Massachusetts has no law against suicide itself.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy)

------
tracker1
I absolutely hate even the idea of "Civil Asset Forfeiture." It's even more of
a bullshit legal construct than a non-living entity having first amendment
rights. It's clearly a 4th Amendment violation and deserves to be challenged.

I'd be okay with freezing assets for up to say 3 months while formal charges
are filed, but just taking them forever is fucking bullshit.

~~~
jacob019
It is outrageous. We need a legislative fix.

------
warent
A huge problem here is that the government has zero skin in the game. Random
people working for some three letter agency are able to plunge you into a
bureaucratic labyrinth at the flick of a wrist, and even violate their own
guidelines with an extremely low probability of accountability or
repercussion.

For example:

> _Under federal forfeiture law, the government was required to initiate a
> forfeiture case within 90 days after the Kazazis responded to the seizure
> notice. If it failed to initiate a forfeiture case within that window, it
> would be required to promptly return the money to the claimants._

> _That deadline passed over a month ago, on April 17. CBP has not filed a
> forfeiture complaint; nor has it returned the money._

This kind of behavior should be severely penalized. The Kazazis should be
awarded a minimum of 10x the market value of the asset, or about $570,000, and
NOT to be paid out of some magic bottomless government account funded by tax
dollars, but directly from whomever the head of the offending department is.

Then the horrible life experiences they're afflicting on innocent individuals
might actually be bumped up from "P4 - Low priority" to "P0 - Get this shit
fixed now"

~~~
drtillberg
Better yet, the Albanian gentleman should be deputized to seize and hold the
property of the officers who flagrantly violated their oaths and his rights,
garnish their paychecks, and let them wait anxiously for him to get around to
telling them 'why'.

~~~
henriquemaia
That's returning to an older conception of justice, one that is rather harsh
and violent: the law of talion[0]. While it may appeal to our gut feelings, it
goes against the more humane enlightened form of justice we have nowadays. I
wouldn’t want to go down that road.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye)

------
salawat
This is one of the most horrifying stories I've read in a long time.

I have a great deal of trouble even understanding what has gone so
catastrophically wrong to even have this practice be a thing. Due process MUST
be honored. No excuses are acceptable that "convictions are to hard, we NEED
this".

Law enforcement and policing with this kind of discretion, ceases to be
policing, protection of, or service to society. I will back the men and women
who truly try to execute their duty with due respect and honor to those they
are protecting, but institutional mechanisms like this only undermine and
weaken the trust the public can have in the government.

I'll come out and say it. I'll accept a drug dealer on every corner before
I'll accept the legality and morality of confiscation of assets without due
process or with shortcutted due process. Our country survived just fine before
the explosion in law enforcement's capability to waltz over civil rights, and
it can survive without it now. If you can't get the job done with typical
investigative techniques that don't include stomping on or cleverly redefining
the scope of the 4th Amendment, then maybe, just maybe you're doing it wrong.

Depriving a citizen of life, liberty, and the fruits of their pursuit of
happiness is SUPPOSED to be a long, ardorous task.

Vigilia pretium libertatis est.

------
DenisM
Justice Thomas indicated [1] his severe disapproval of civil forfeiture and
interest in invalidating it should a good case present itself, and so it seems
that such case just turned up. I'm waiting for the supreme court case with
eager anticipation.

Last time there was a potentially suitable case the victim's lawyer made a
mistake of not raising the constitutional grounds (4th amendment) during the
initial trial, and this formality made it impossible to mount a good appeal.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/04/the_supreme_court_finally_found_an_issue_that_unites_them.html)

------
Sohcahtoa82
Here's something that gets me...

A lot of Second Amendment advocates say we need the right to bear arms to
protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Well...here's your tyranny.
Now where's that armed uprising?

~~~
JackCh
There is a common saying: _" There are four boxes to be used in the defense of
liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."_

Emphasis on _Please use in that order._ I can't believe this needs to be
emphasized, but killing people should be a last resort. I'm _glad_ these "2nd
Amendment advocates" aren't as trigger happy as you seem to suggest they be. I
don't think it's hyperbolic to say that shooting people before nonviolent
options are exhausted is depraved.

~~~
gowld
The first 3 have long been exhausted for civil forfeiture.

~~~
JackCh
I disagree and I _strongly_ discourage you from shooting people. There is
still a large portion of the public who don't know what civil forfeiture is or
why it's a bad thing. If you want to make a difference the best thing you can
do right is educate people.

~~~
chmod775
> I disagree

He's factually correct though. I don't see how you can disagree with the fact
that the supreme court already ruled these practices legal (jury), neither
republicans nor democrats managed to fix the matter (ballot), and the average
american showers once a day...

Stories like these have been all over the news under both republican and
democratic presidents and congress - nothing changed.

Don't give people a four-step program and then act aghast they're considering
to go through with it. Find a better four-step program/quote instead.

~~~
JackCh
> _" He's factually correct though."_

It's not a fact that soap box options have been exhausted. It's merely your
_opinion_ that the soap box has been tried enough, to the point that giving up
on trying to inform and persuade people is rational and/or ethical.

But... is that actually your opinion? You're here arguing online using your
soap box, instead of waging a guerilla war against the system. So I think in
actual fact you haven't given up on the soap box. Or at least you still see
value in the soap box for purposes of inciting a rebellion?

------
cf498
I thought civil asset forfeiture was outlawed around 2014/2015\. Looking
closer it seems that was only in a few states. I found this map from 2015

[https://cdn0.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7195521/c...](https://cdn0.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7195521/civil_forfeiture_map.0.png)

Has much changed since then?

~~~
jryan49
edit: Any changes to these laws would not apply due to the border search
exception.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)

The supreme court basically decided you have no rights at the border.

~~~
jpindar
Within 100 miles of the border, that is. Which includes most of the more
populated areas of the US.

------
jsjohnst
> Erald Kazazi said the ordeal has affected his father's health and turned
> their lives upside down. But, he said, his father's high opinion of the
> United States has not changed.

> “He's not going to let the actions of some employees that made a mistake in
> their duties change his opinion of the country,” he said.

I wish people wouldn’t put the USA on high pedestals and realize this (among
other things) are very serious issues that will ultimately be our downfall if
not addressed. Do people think the countries they fled from got bad overnight?
No, it’s a pattern of ambivalence to corruption that led to the ultimately
shitty state they are in now and we will be there faster than we think.

~~~
chmod775
His father was being diplomatic. It's easier to admit you messed up once than
admitting you have a systemic problem.

------
hapnin
The system is working as designed: shield state actors from liability while
increasing police powers.

A few lose their jobs or get fined, but fewer go to jail or have to account
for their excesses. I really question the motives of anyone who wants to be a
cop in this environment.

------
mnm1
So the police steal as much as everyone else combined, but it's still only a
few bad apples? Every last beat cop on up (especially if they are part of a
union) is a bad, rotten apple. Every single one of these cops are propping up
ridiculous systems of mass theft and murder orchestrated by their colleagues
and their counterparts in prosecutors' offices. These people have no concept
of justice or fairness or serving or protecting. I truly think the US would be
better off without official police that's how detrimental they are to our
society. They are one of the few groups that I can truly say keep our society
from being civilized.

~~~
gowld
> the police steal as much as everyone else combined

No, that's a "fake news" myth.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-
took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/)

> If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor
> vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion,

> The total value of asset forfeitures was more than one-third of the total
> value of property stolen by criminals in 2014.

~~~
chmod775
But only around 20% of property stolen gets recovered (value). So the police
actually take more than they recover, operating at a net negative.

And that isn't counting the wages of people working there yet...

I realize this comparison isn't fair at all - the problem appears to be that
it comes to mind at all.

------
brianbreslin
Is there anywhere for someone to learn about the process that exists to
RECOVER civil asset forfeiture funds?

~~~
tracker1
You have to sue the government body that took your funds. Get a good lawyer
and pray, basically.

~~~
user982
The government body will refuse to return the money voluntarily if you sue.[0]

[0]:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180508/10330739804/cbp-s...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180508/10330739804/cbp-
sued-seizing-41000-airline-passenger-then-refusing-to-give-it-back-unless-she-
promised-not-to-sue.shtml)

~~~
gowld
That's a different kind of suit. The first suit to is to prove your innocence
(ugh) to get the money returned. The second suit is to complain about the
civil rights violations.

------
tluyben2
What is the rationale behind civil forfeiture? Besides a convenient way to get
more funds into the state pocket if you don’t like someone’s face?

I first saw it in The Shield (still one of my favorite shows) and remember
thinking that it looks more like some army controlled region in Africa or
something than a civilized country. But yeah, so does privatising prisons.

~~~
gowld
The rationale, such as it is, is that proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
is too hard, and the Constitution does not apply to _civil_ forfeiture
(civil=$$$, criminal=imprisonment). The 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches
and seizures) is quietly ignored.

~~~
stordoff
Is the 4th Amendment ignored, or is the threshold for search (assuming
"reasonable suspicion" or something similar) just lower than for (criminal)
seizure?

------
api
How is asset forfeiture not precisely the system of police bribery and police
corruption that we routinely criticize "third world" countries for having?

~~~
mikeash
That’s simple: with third world bribery, you pay the police for a favor. With
asset forfeiture, they just take your money and don’t do anything for you.

------
exabrial
Has civil asset forfiture been to the Supreme Court? It's blatantly
unconstitutional, and given the current panel I'd say it has a great chance of
being killed.

I do have to say, it's a well known fact trying to make it across _any_ border
with a sum of cash is a risky business. I would hope America would be an
exception to that fact due to "Due Process", but even I wouldn't place a bet
on that. It says very clearly on the us travel website carrying more than $10k
of cash is going to get you in trouble though.

Transferring money internationally is a huge pita. I just came back from
China. Good luck every trying to fund a wechat or alipay account as a
Westerner.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Transferring money from China is easy via a wire. Converting RMB tO USD, on
the other hand is a PITA and you won’t succeed if you don’t have the right
documentation in triplicate.

You can use wechat to pay for things as a foreigner if you have a resident
permit, or so I here.

Carrying more than $10k of cash is actually ok as long as you report it.

~~~
exabrial
> xferring is easy via wire

No, it's not, you cannot wire it unless the recipient is a Chinese national.

> If you have a resident permit

The only requirement is a Chinese phone number which requires hours in line, a
visa, facial recognition scan, and passport, and the same requirements for the
bank account. Once you have a Chinese bank account, you can hook it up to
wechat. The only ways to fund it are via cash however.

This was not a communication issue, I had a native speaker with me at Bank of
China and China mobile.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> No, it's not, you cannot wire it unless the recipient is a Chinese national.

I’ve wired money from my Chinese account to my overseas account plenty of
times. I’m most definitely not a Chinese National. I’ve also had money wired
to my Chinese account before. Still, if you don’t want to wait in line, don’t
go to BOC (or ICBC).

I still have a Chinese phone number also. Passport + resident permit was good
enough in my case for both account and phone number. But it could have changed
since I got those a few years ago.

BOC and China mobile see the worst companies to deal with. CMB (China merchant
bank) isn’t an SOE so their customer service is better. Also, Unicom is better
than China Mobile for foreigners.

------
partycoder
Civil forfeiture is technically a legal action against your property, not you.

Since your property will not and cannot legally defend itself, it loses by
default.

~~~
drtillberg
Next the government will indict the left hand of a thief, or the foot of a
common brawler. Those are just body _parts_ with no constitutional rights, so
forget about habeas corpus and all that jazz. It'll be much better. Cops can
just focus on arresting fists and feet and not worry about explaining
themselves to juries.

------
eggy
Usually I like to see balance come about in due time like a pendulum slowly
swinging from one side to the other, but it's stories like these that would
have me understand action and revolt against the body perpetrating such
morally wrong, yet supposedly legal actions. Time to call for a Robin Hood. He
did not steal from the rich and give to the poor as most people think, but
rather took back property and money seized by the corrupt brother of the good
king who was absent and at war a distance away. Here the government allows for
seizure without accountability, but the laws or whatever it is that allows
this is legal?

------
throwaway062018
...unpopular opinion time...

so, is anyone taking a long hard look and asking themselves, first
individually and then collectively - "this situation , this and all the stuff
going on in our world today, is this or is this not totally out of control?"

would be great to be able to do this without looking to some other country and
saying "but _that_ happens over there and _that_ is way worse than _this_ "

some of this stuff should be absolute (see intent of constitutions and similar
)

------
oldandtired
This is decades old old, centuries old, millenia old problem. If one's
government and by extension all those organisations which are under its
umbrella are not held to the highest standards by "we the people", the
citizens, then it will rapidly degrade to the lowest standards.

It can only be held to the highest standards by the active, ongoing
participation of the citizens. There is no nation on this beautiful planet
that is held to the highest standards because there is no agreement what the
highest standards are.

As citizens, we are only interested in our specific interests and cares and
whoopee-do for anyone else. As citizens, we don't care what happens elsewhere.
That is someone else's problem.

It doesn't matter what kid of politics you adhere to, what philosophies or
religions, most (the vast, vast majority) are only interested in what they get
out of things. If the consequences of some policy, legislation, etc. will come
and bite them, they don't care as long as it hasn't happened right now.

So with the lowest standards, we have corrupt or useless politicians, law
enforcement, national security, commercial enterprises, government
enterprises, medical treatment, education, etc. The problems continue to grow
and the citizens continue to fight over the decreasing scraps left over for
them. Every system on this planet is failing rapidly and will continue to go
downhill.

Until people are willing to take responsibility for their choices and accept
responsibility for their choices, they will be unable to do anything that is
effective in making changes for the better. If you are not willing to hold
yourself to a higher standard, then you cannot expect those who have
responsibilities in government, business, social areas to have a higher
standard.

If you are part of any organisation that has "bad apples" and you do nothing,
then you are one of those "bad apples". There are no excuses, no extenuating
circumstances, as long as any "bad apples" are not dealt with, the entirety of
the organisation is corrupt.

So on that note, it should not be at all surprising when corrupt activities
are undertaken by any government organisation and law enforcement such as the
legal theft of any goods and chattels of any citizen or non-citizen. The
citizens have been complicit and now the citizens have to live with that
corruption and the consequences for themselves.

If we aren't doing something active to improve things then we are in full
agreement with what does happen to others and then to ourselves.

------
neurotech1
John Oliver on civil asset forfeiture, satirical but shockingly real:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

------
stefek99
You fill the form, you declare the cash.

It says in Terms & Conditions "if you don't register BLAH BLAH BLAH"

Choose a country that promotes freedom - Liberland, Blue Frontiers anyone?

------
skookumchuck
Why do no candidates, either Dem or GOP, work to end this? Isn't the
government blatantly stealing from people something both sides can get
together to end?

~~~
vageli
Because then it might be construed as an attack on police funding. Politicians
seek support of police unions when they're running campaigns.

------
MisterTea
God I love this country. Where else do the criminals compete with the police
and the terrorists compete with our armed mentally ill mass murderers?

------
trumped
The agents will get a nice bonus this week... probably as good as last week
and next week.

------
jamaicahest
Here's a version without the paywall
[http://archive.is/osFHm](http://archive.is/osFHm)

------
nighthawk1
Need to declare that, buddy. Anything over $10k. It’s super easy for them to
detect that much currency in your carryon.

~~~
branchan
Did you read the article?

Hottot said Kazazi was well aware of those requirements and planned to file
his disclosure form during his four-hour layover in Newark. The form instructs
travelers to file the paperwork “at the time of departure from the United
States with the Customs officer in charge at any Customs port of entry or
departure.”

------
mankash666
How many 64 year olds put their life savings in carry on bags? I'm not saying
the CBP is innocent, but $60K in cash in a carry on is suspicious

~~~
t0mbstone
Suspicious, sure. But people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
You shouldn't be able to just take someone's stuff because you are
"suspicious" that they got it illegally. You should have to _prove_ beyond a
reasonable doubt that they got it illegally first.

------
jbob2000
Why would you risk carrying around that kind of money? What’s wrong with doing
a wire transfer? Or just writing yourself a cheque?

Failing to see an honest use case for moving that much cash by hand.

~~~
nrmitchi
Besides the points already mentioned by others (as well as in the article),
writing a cheque in this situation has the problem of being able to cash it on
the other side. I cannot think of a single bank (and please correct me if I'm
wrong) that would allow a client, especially a new, previously unknown client,
to walk in and cash a $60k international check. Without special circumstances,
you'd likely be looking at an extended hold period, which would defeat the
purpose in many situations.

Source: Wrote myself a check for a similar reason (not wanting to carry more
than 10k across the border). Funds were held by the receiving bank for 15
business days.

~~~
jbob2000
15 days is not an egregious amount of time to wait to verify that $58,000 is
being moved honestly.

~~~
nrmitchi
You are correct, it is not, and I completely understand why most banks and
financial institutions have this policy. My point was that if you are going on
a vacation, or a trip, or business of some kind for 4 weeks with the need to
take a relatively large sum of money with you, the 3 week delay would make
this option less than ideal.

------
dsabanin
I hate civil forfeiture as much as the next guy, but the story of a guy from
Albania carrying all his family's "life savings", including his adult son's
savings (why would he give his father his life savings?), in amount of ~60k
USD back to Albania because "bank wire was too risky" sounds like a cover up
lie. What's more believable is that bank wire was too risky because you need
to declare where the money is coming from when you send them and when you
receive them, and also probably pay taxes. It just looks like a simple money
laundering operation.

------
vuln
Anecdotal but I have walked through security and boarded US flights with much
much larger amounts of cash without a single issue, no declaration, no
paperwork. Not a single person bat an eye. I wonder if there is more to this
story. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I'm sure the
USG will make a mockery of itself.

~~~
arcticbull
It sounds like (1) they didn't notice you did that and (2) you didn't follow
proper procedure because as noted in the article you're required to declare
bringing in or taking out amounts in excess of $10,000. I've never gotten a
jaywalking ticket, but that doesn't meant it never happens.

------
martin1975
I come from a country that borders Albania... Albania has a 60% muslim
population, and given our current administration and mood toward islam, it is
highly doubtful they were after his money but rather after something that went
off on their 'threat to national security' radar. Could be a mistaken identity
too, it's not unheard of .. many names on those watch lists sound similar or
are not the same person at all.

I'm betting all moneys will be returned to him when they conclude whatever
investigation they need to conclude. This is just a sensationalist headline
that doesn't do any service to anyone....

Edit:

Funny, people downvote as if the government has no case - they clearly sent
him a notice that “Enforcement activity indicates that the currency was
involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation.” and
“pursuant to an administrative search of Mr. Kazazi and his bags, TSA agents
discovered artfully concealed U.S. currency. Mr. Kazazi provided inconsistent
statements regarding the currency, had no verifiable source of income and
possessed evidence of structuring activity,” that is, making cash withdrawals
of less than $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements."

Most cash has traces of drugs on it... and serial #'s on notes are sometimes
marked when drug stings are conducted.

All I'm saying is, there's two sides to the story - not just the WaPo one. I
guess it's hard to depict that on HN... WaPo isn't the source of truth on this
- just an opinion. Like mine. Or anyone else here.

~~~
rootsudo
No, most forfeiture is not returned to the victim.

Because it's not innocent until declared guilty, it's guilty until declared
innocent. Forfeiture does not follow human vs USA. It's 56,000 $ VS USA.

At Airports you waive your right to search protection.

~~~
martin1975
Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. Take it to an extreme... if this can
be done to anyone for no reason like you suggest - e.g. "he looks guilty, so
I'll search/forfeit whatever funds I find" \- then that's a major breakdown.

Assuming you are correct- and I don't know - then even if that is the case,
there has to be a way to get the money back however arduous or red-tape it may
be, and eventually claim damages for the administrative cost of recovery.

We're not a banana republic... yet (I hope). If they did it to him in Albania,
then I wouldn't be nearly surprised or possibly at all. I've encountered
corrupt border patrol officials I had to bribe to get out of a mess.. and it
was in one of the Balkan countries, I won't name which.

~~~
platinumrad
The poster you're replying to is basically correct about how civil asset
forfeiture works in the US. If you search, there are plenty of articles about
similar cases.

~~~
martin1975
If there's truth to it, without understanding the govt's rationale about this,
it looks about as un-American and un-capitalistic as it gets.... goes against
the grain of who we are as a country.

~~~
newnewpdro
Now you understand why it's so upsetting, welcome to the same page.

Edit:

The part that most filled me with rage;

The CBP seizure notice gave the Kazazis a number of options for proceeding
with the case. They could abandon the cash completely, or they could make an
“offer in compromise” — letting CBP keep a certain percentage of the seized
cash if it returned the rest.

~~~
stordoff
I wondered about the bribery comparison above, as you aren't offering the
money and aren't getting someone to do something for you, but how is that last
part anything but ("If you let us keep some, we will return your money")? That
whole thing seems to suggest there isn't a legitimate reason for seizing it-
either they should be keeping ALL of the money, or NONE of it.

