Only criminals use cash

[genuineoriginal]

Only criminals use cash.

My wife gave me some cash and a deposit slip, and when I went to the bank to deposit the cash, I was treated as if I was money laundering.

The banker refused to take the cash unless I deposited it into my account first and then he would transfer it into my wife's account.

He said this was to protect the bank from the government regulations because anyone could just walk into a bank and deposit cash into anyone else's account and it couldn't be traced.

The banker said that all banks would be doing this by 2016.

 

[Tinark]

Only criminals use cash.

My wife gave me some cash and a deposit slip, and when I went to the bank to deposit the cash, I was treated as if I was money laundering.

The banker refused to take the cash unless I deposited it into my account first and then he would transfer it into my wife's account.

He said this was to protect the bank from the government regulations because anyone could just walk into a bank and deposit cash into anyone else's account and it couldn't be traced.

The banker said that all banks would be doing this by 2016.

Uh, how is that treating you like a criminal? It's a simple "if...then" statement: IF you are a criminal, THEN there is no way to trace the cash. Therefore, please deposit it into your own account first.

When you are carded, to you think people are treating you like a criminal (as a minor trying to purchase alcohol)? No, that's silly, it's a preventative measure.

Part of these rules are to help prevent cash from being funneled to terrorist organizations and to trace the origins of it when it is. I thought you right wingers were in support of that kind of thing?

 

[Eeset]

Plain stupid regulations are created frequently. So this will mean managers and clerks must maintain an account at the same bank as their employer if they will be depositing daily receipts? This can't be good. :down:

 

[Tinark]

Plain stupid regulations are created frequently. So this will mean managers and clerks must maintain an account at the same bank as their employer if they will be depositing daily receipts? This can't be good. :down:

They can probably be an authorized person on the account. genuineoriginal can set up a joint account with his wife if he doesn't want to have to deposit the funds into his own account first.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They can probably be an authorized person on the account. genuineoriginal can set up a joint account with his wife if he doesn't want to have to deposit the funds into his own account first.

So, I cannot allow my wife to manage her own money, I must get my name added to her account to prove I am not a criminal when I deposit her cash into her account when she requests me to.

Have we surpassed the government in George Orwell's 1984 yet?

Just how evil will this government become before it falls?

 

[Tinark]

So, I cannot allow my wife to manage her own money, I must get my name added to her account to prove I am not a criminal when I deposit her cash into her account when she requests me to.

Have we surpassed the government in George Orwell's 1984 yet?

Just how evil will this government become before it falls?

Do you oppose the PATRIOT act that strengthened these regs to prevent terrorist groups from laundering money?

Perhaps you should stand up and oppose the unconstitutional immigration checkpoints, the numerous anti-terrorism laws put in place since 9/11, the banking regulations to trace funds going to terrorist orgs, etc.

The right wingers are the ones most fervently in support of these things.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you oppose the PATRIOT act

Of course I do, as would anyone else that swore an oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Perhaps you should stand up and oppose the unconstitutional immigration checkpoints

You mean the TSA and their body groping of anyone trying to travel?

, the numerous anti-terrorism laws put in place since 9/11, the banking regulations to trace funds going to terrorist orgs, etc.

More laws designed to be used against the common citizen and only accidentally used against the groups that the laws claim they were designed against.

The right wingers are the ones most fervently in support of these things.

Us conservatives are not in support of those things, so those "right wingers" must not be conservatives.

 

[Sherman]

.....The right wingers are the ones most fervently in support of these things.

Typical knee jerk post. Conservatives are not in support of heavy handed stupidity like this.

 

[shagster01]

I don't see what the problem is here. If you want to use the bank you gotta follow the banks rules. Nobody is forcing you to use the bank.

 

[Mr. 5020]

You can use cash all you want. You just can't perform cash transactions on other peoples' bank accounts. The teller you spoke to was correct.

The bank that I work at still allows this, but most of the employees think it is ridiculous that we do because of the liability it sets up the account owner with.

 

[fzappa13]

You can use cash all you want. You just can't perform cash transactions on other peoples' bank accounts. The teller you spoke to was correct.

The bank that I work at still allows this, but most of the employees think it is ridiculous that we do because of the liability it sets up the account owner with.

If the bank has the I.D. of both the depositor and the recipient what is the problem?

 

[freelight]

CHASE,......doing this early........

CHASE,......doing this early........

Only criminals use cash.

My wife gave me some cash and a deposit slip, and when I went to the bank to deposit the cash, I was treated as if I was money laundering.

The banker refused to take the cash unless I deposited it into my account first and then he would transfer it into my wife's account.

He said this was to protect the bank from the government regulations because anyone could just walk into a bank and deposit cash into anyone else's account and it couldn't be traced.

The banker said that all banks would be doing this by 2016.

Yes, I can relate,.....to have a family member or friend deposit any money in my bank, they cannot use 'cash' but must get a money-order or write a check. This became policy recently, I bank at CHASE. - however, it appears you can still deposit cash at most Wells Fargo banks. Not sure if this is the best policy to have all banks operate this way by 2016, unless its best for all involved. My friend was kind of offended when he tried to deposit some cash into my account, when the clerk told him they are trying to protect from 'money laundering',....so he had to go get a money-order :idunno:



pj

 

[Buzzword]

Their bank, their rules, your temper tantrum.

On an unrelated note, why do you and your wife have separate bank accounts?
Every couple I've ever known who divorced did so because of money problems, most of which revolved around having separate bank accounts and one spouse feeling the other wasn't "contributing" enough to paying bills, etc.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Their bank, their rules, your temper tantrum.

On an unrelated note, why do you and your wife have separate bank accounts?
Every couple I've ever known who divorced did so because of money problems, most of which revolved around having separate bank accounts and one spouse feeling the other wasn't "contributing" enough to paying bills, etc.

You must have a lot of selfish friends.

 

[Buzzword]

You must have a lot of selfish friends.

Probably, but you didn't answer my question.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Probably, but you didn't answer my question.

That's right.

 

[Mr. 5020]

If the bank has the I.D. of both the depositor and the recipient what is the problem?

Off the top of my head, it is income, and the recipient has to explain to the IRS where it came from (especially if it is over a certain dollar amount).

Also, if the depositor acts suspicious in any way, or if it is over a certain dollar about, you will have a Bank Secrecy Act officer all in the recipient's business.

Identification or not, the depositor has zero liability. The recipient has all of the liability.

 

[fzappa13]

Off the top of my head, it is income, and the recipient has to explain to the IRS where it came from (especially if it is over a certain dollar amount).

Also, if the depositor acts suspicious in any way, or if it is over a certain dollar about, you will have a Bank Secrecy Act officer all in the recipient's business.

Identification or not, the depositor has zero liability. The recipient has all of the liability.

Setting aside for the moment that numerous banks have been willing participants in money laundering for many years; if the IRS has the ID of both the giver and the givee one would think they had enough to get to the bottom of any suspicious activity already don't you think? In fact one would think that, if their true intent were to detect and prosecute money laundering, allowing someone to document it through using a bank would give them the lure/trap necessary to catch them both. Why prevent the depositor from falling into the trap thus implicating both them and the recipient in one action?

 

[zoo22]

In fact one would think that, if their true intent were to detect and prosecute money laundering, allowing someone to document it through using a bank would give them the lure/trap necessary to catch them both. Why prevent the depositor from falling into the trap thus implicating both them and the recipient in one action?

Trap? lain: They're not setting some sort of sting operation to catch criminals, they're putting preventative measures in place.

 

[fzappa13]

Trap? lain: They're not setting some sort of sting operation to catch criminals, they're putting preventative measures in place.

I would suggest that laws are preventative as is their enforcement. Agencies catch criminals and they often use stings to accomplish their purpose. That said I would agree that a sting is not what these laws presage.