cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13145612

(edit) Would someone please ship some counterfeit money through there and get it confiscated, so the police can then be investigated for spending counterfeit money?

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-11 points

Are there actually legitimate use cases to send larger amounts of cash in a regular package? Typically, such packages are not insured or only up to a rather small amount. So, if you want to transfer a large amount in cash, most people would probably use a dedicated cash transfer service. Or even more likely, do it electronically.

Or do they also seize small amounts of money from birthday presents and christmas cards?

permalink
report
reply
2 points
*

So, if you want to transfer a large amount in cash, most people would probably use a dedicated cash transfer service.

“most people”. Luckily we know that it’s an injustice to marginalize minority groups.

Problems with xfer services:
① fees
② privacy

It’s really absurd, but money transfer services often charge a percentage of the amount transferred (esp.if forex is involved), as if sending more money somehow costs them more electricity to transmit. I feel like I’m being ripped off when charged a percentage of money that moves and even if the price is reasonable I will reject that option on general principle.

You potentially pay more to the transfer company than a courrier and give up privacy on top of it.

③ shipping is faster than electronic payment (no joke!)

I shit you not. I tried a payment service once to send a few hundred to someone for a laptop. Two days later I got a fraud alert demanding that I call a number. I was interrogated:

  • how do you know the recipient? What is your relationship to them?
  • what are you buying?
  • why are you buying it?

WTF? When I send money in the mail, the postal worker does not pull this shit and snoop on me. After the interrogation, it took another day or two for the money to reach the recipient. The post would have been faster and hassle free.

④ we now live in a frenzy of AML extremists coupled with the masses being pushover consumers who will go along with being cattled herded. Non-criminals are being harrassed, inconvenienced, forced to overshare information, and generally oppressed in this fishing for criminals which is being carried out with total disregard for colatteral damage to law-abiding people. Why? Lazy law enforcement. They want /their/ job to be convenient. They want evidence of crime to fall in their lap, rather than to do clever good investigative work.

⑤ a sender may have to ship something AND pay money. I know jewelers. It’s common for someone who is buying new jewelry to pay partially in scrap gold. They give the jeweler their unwanted jewelry which has a melt value. The jeweler reduces the price of the new jewelry by the value of the scrap gold. If you are shipping scrap gold, why make a separate trip to a money transfer service and pay more fees? It’s cheaper and easier to put cash in the pkg if you trust the jeweler. Or a customer might want the very same gold or stones their great grandmother wore to be made into something else.

A jeweler told me uninsured packages have a very high rate of loss. Couriers apparently know when jewelry is being shipped, at least when the sender is “Bob’s diamond shop”. Insurance works as a great deterrant. A courrier knows there will be an internal investigation when an insured pkg does not reach the recipient. They can only steal so many of them before a pattern emerges. Insurance is so reliable for jewelers shipping gold and precious stones, they would just as well trust it for cash.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer! It helped me to better understand your perspective.

Regarding (1) I can somehow understand why it’s often a percentage. The more valuable the goods that you transport, the higher the associated risks. Insurance costs are higher and also the employees are more endagered of being robbed.

Regarding (3) I would say that’s only in very specific scenarios like international money transfer from/to sanctioned countries or if the recipient is on some kind of watch list. PayPal, Credit Card, Crypto Currency etc. should typically all process within seconds. International bank transfer also shouldn’t take more than a few days. And if we’re talking about delays caused by sanctions, then physical deliveries are affected as well.

What is still hard to understand for me is that people would send ANYTHING valuable in a non insured package, especially money. As you mentioned yourself in point (5), there’s a huge risk of it being lost or stolen. Also independent of (potentially unlawful) police officers. Therefore, my intuitive feeling was, whoever is willing to take that risk, has a lot of money to transfer and is willing to lose some in favor to stay invisible.

If you use a courier service that’s specialized on valuables which offers also insurance etc. that’s a completely different story to me. But insured FedEx packages full of cash are still suspicious to me and I find it fair to question the legitimacy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I can somehow understand why it’s often a percentage.

But luckily under the capitalist paradigm every consumer can decide for themselves what prices are reasonable and decide whether a transaction is in their interest. I don’t care how they justify their price. If they are charging me 1% to move 5 figures, I’m not okay with paying upwards of $100 to move money. If there really is $100 worth of risk in moving money electronically, then I don’t want a piece of that action.

PayPal, Credit Card, Crypto Currency etc. should typically all process within seconds.

PayPal shares your personal info with over 600 corporations:

https://git.disroot.org/cyberMonk/liberethos_paradigm/src/branch/master/rap_sheets/paypal.md

Credit card: there are only 3 to choose from in most regions.

  • visa: member of the Better than Cash Alliance; pays merchants $10k to reject cash, thus whenever you pay for something with Visa you help an entity who is trying to impose forced banking on us. Visa also blocked payments to Wikileaks, thus taking away our autonomy.
  • mastercard: member of the Better than Cash Alliance. Blocked payments to Wikileaks, thus taking away our autonomy. Sells offline transaction data to Google (and Google does business with the Israeli military).
  • american express: ALEC member, thus supports Trump and US republicans, opposes labor rights, fights women’s rights, fights environmental protection and supports climate denial propaganda, fights gun control, fights immigration, etc. Also blocked payments to Wikileaks.
  • credit card does not work in the other direction. A jeweler cannot expect customers who sell their scrap gold to accept credit card. An individual is not going to setup a squareup or whatever it is just to do a one-off transaction.

Cryptocurrency requires both people to use, which kills it as an option in most cases.

All of those options, including cryptocurrency, expose more data than cash and bring in risks with that exposure.

my intuitive feeling was, whoever is willing to take that risk, has a lot of money to transfer and is willing to lose some in favor to stay invisible.

Most people don’t have the insight that my fellow jewelers do. Most people think the risk of an uninsured pkg getting lost is the same as an insured pkg. They decide to save money and take the risk without understanding the heightened risk.

My reason for bringing up insurance was that insurance provides a way to secure valuables like cash. The best security is a good insurance policy. It gives a good option for the legit shipping of cash. The jeweler in the article most likely insured the $47k+ value. But if they didn’t, then it was most likely a young jeweler who has not learned that lesson. Either way, insurance does not likely protect victims from government actions, which is likely why the victims had to directly sue the state.

If you use a courier service that’s specialized on valuables which offers also insurance etc.

Something like that might exist in major cities but probably over 95% of the US is rural where some people are lucky if FedEx is within reasonable reach, much less anything special purpose. DHL abandoned the US, IIRC because they could not spread enough with enough reach to be sustainable. FedEx and UPS have a near duopoly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It doesn’t matter. The point of the way our laws are supposed to work is that the government can’t go looking at people and their stuff without suspicion. The stuff itself cannot be the suspicion unless its only common purpose is criminal. That’s why a stack of money should be safe in plain sight, but not a bong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I would venture to say that the common purpose of money is criminal. Crimes defined by me are different from crimes defined by our criminal overlords.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You are allowed your opinion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I don’t know about the US but in Germany the context of things is definitely considered to judge if something is common or suspicious.

It’s perfectly legal to own a clown mask and to wear it during carnival would be common. If you wear one outside carnival and walk towards the door of a bank, that’s pretty suspicious.

It’s perfectly legal to stand around in public. If you do it alone, at night in an area that’s known to have many drug dealers and you suddenly start to run away if the police strolls along, then that’s suspicious again.

And if the police considers you to be suspicious, they will ask what you’re doing and to explain your behavior. They won’t straight away throw you into jail obviously but they have the right to do a routine check.

For me, the cash in a regular package is really similar. If they seize your cash and you can proof that it was a weird way to pay for a car or that your aunt forgot her pile of cash when she visited you and you send it after her, then I’m quite sure, they’ll have to hand it back. If you object to explain who sent you $10.000 and why, then I agree to find that pretty suspicious.

Assuming criminals do use FedEx etc. to transfer illegally earned money anonymously from one place to another, what would be the alternative to intervene? Or would you just let it happen?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The problem here is the money itself has no intent. It’s not walking towards a bank wearing a mask. And there’s no law that says you have to use banks. It’s entirely legal to cash out all of your paychecks, keep the money in your mattress, and then go pay for a car in cash. Since the great Depression there are still Americans who distrust the banking system.

To confiscate that money based solely on the fact that it’s money should be illegal. It was illegal until the 1980’s. Then we convinced ourselves that although we have a right to due process and high standards for searches and seizures of our property; our property itself does not have any rights and can be detained on it’s own. That is, they can take your property, without charging you with any crime. They instead charge the money, house, car, etc, with the crime and you are now in the position of proving it’s not criminal without any of the court protections you would have if you were charged. No jury, no free lawyer, and no assumption of innocence for the state to overcome.

If that sounds like something that could be abused, it absolutely has been. Cities have used it to clear land for development without paying for it. Some small towns are notorious for taking any bundles of cash they can from people passing through.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Low value foreign currency, i.e. for collectors?

You can buy a lot of issues in packs of 100 or even 1,000 notes for a few tens of dollars, and it’s not worth calling Brinks for some old Soviet roubles or Zimbabwe dollars. Would likely still smell like money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Okay, valid point. But is the police seizing such packages? If we assume the police is stealing it out of greed, that wouldn’t be too profitable for them to steal 5 USD in Zimbabwe dollars.

I thought they’re confiscating cash with a higher value, like bundlSe of USD/CAD/EUR/AUD etc. In the article they wrote 6 million USD and on the picture I see only US notes as well. And if that’s the case, I somewhat agree that that’s a bit suspicious.

Still, they shouldn’t just take and keep it, but if they confiscate it and then contact the recipient to explain the background of the transaction, I’d be fine with that.

If you carry large amounts of cash on a flight you also have provide reason and papertrail for that.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Community stats

  • 673

    Monthly active users

  • 40

    Posts

  • 137

    Comments

Community moderators