Money Under Mattresss Seized

[dr ray]

why should they even have to pay tax in the first place?

You have a point. I was never asked whether I wanted to or not but as a society there seems to be an acceptance that a certain level of taxation is necessary to pay for defence of the realm and for the poor.

The problem is that the state is now abusing this power we allowed it and is taking taxes to further the interests of its political supporters and doing it in an unlawful and oppressive manner.

The contract has been broken and personally I would support the evasion of tax if one can get away with it and in my personal dealings I pay tradespeople in cash.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

as a society there seems to be an acceptance that a certain level of taxation is necessary to pay for defence of the realm and for the poor.

if that were true then the state would not need to threaten people with imprisonment for non-payment.

The contract has been broken

what contract?

[dr ray]

if that were true then the state would not need to threaten people with imprisonment for non-payment.

what contract?

We have a democratic tradition. It doesn't suit everyone but the democratic consensus needs to be enforced (by legal means- not by thugs answerable to politicians).

The problem is that in a democracy the muppets always vote for the party which bribes them with their own money and then increases taxation to fund the bribe while skimming off the cream for themselves.

The contract is that we delegate the running of the state to elected representatives provided they continue to act in our interest not their own.

[Billy Ray Valentine]

What about them?

You don't like them?

I was replying to this post -

It's the principle that an individual should be free to save cash, or any other valauable commodity, without the threat of it being confiscated by the State because they think it's a bit fishy.

Understand? It's the principle, not this particular case.

and in particular the bit in bold. Drugs and guns are valuable commodities, and as the whole debate was meant to be about principles, I wondered how far the poster would stretch this principle.

It was the obvious question to ask.

There was a point to my question: this story is about a large ammount of cash that has been confiscated by the police under suspicion of how it was obtained. What if the police don't confiscate the money while they investigate, and a week later they have evidence for a conviction, but the man in question has gone and invested the full £67'000 on drugs and guns, with these commodities split around several of the mans associates - would you say the police should have confiscated the money beforehand and prevented further criminality?

As regards the innocent til proven guilty, I would otherwise agree - except that we simply no nothing about this case. Nothing. We don't even know how the police found the money. They responded to a call of an attempted break in. When they arrived at the house, was the door open? Was the money on the front room table in bundles? Did the police do an illegal search of the house? Was the money in a safe in the spare bedroom? Was the owner at home when the police responded to the call, or was he out? Who made the call? Was there a break in? Was the call a hoax, and somneones way of shopping the guy to the police? Was this a dodgy ruse in order to enter a property the police suspected had this money inside? Was the owner asked if anything was missing, to which he responded, 'no, but I'll just quickly check if my £67'000 in cash is still buried under the floorboards'? How old is the guy? Does he have a criminal record? Does he, and has he ever, worked? Does he associate with known drug dealers? The whole story sounds dodgy but not knowing any of the details, I simply don't know.

[Billy Ray Valentine]

You can't stand on principle on this money issue and then say it's ok for the state to take guns or drugs.

You agree they can take your stuff whenever they fancy, you just get huffy about particular items. It's inconsistent and leaves you pretzel shaped when it comse time to defend your position.

It's either wrong to take someones stuff unless they have done something to harm others, or it isn't. Pick one and stick to it.

Exactly why I asked the question in the first place.

[LazyPeon]

article on Boingboing today:

Texas police accused of highway robberies

CNN reports that police are accused of having robbed at least 150 drivers in Tenaha, Texas. The amount stolen is close to $3 million, says a lawyer who has filed a class action suit against the town and police department there.

Some of the victims (who are mostly African American) said that when they complained to the police about the police, the police threatened to take the victims' children away.

In one case, the district attorney sent a couple who'd been robbed a form letter to sign that said, in exchange for forfeiting the $6000 that had been stolen from them, "...no criminal charges shall be filed...and our children shall not be turned over to [child protective services]."

Very interesting comments on that page.

Looks like this sort of thing will be normal under our lovely One World Government.

[Mick Dundee]

Seems fair enough to me. When you earn money legally, you should declare it, so that you pay the neccesary tax on it. In so doing you will prove its origin.

Reasons for not doing this are to avoid paying tax, which is illegal, or the activity that earned the money is illegal, for example drug dealing.

So if you want to give into drug dealers and tax dodgers, criticise this law. If that chap really had withdrawn a £100 a week and put his money under the mattress after being in a well paid salaried job, that would have been obvious from the records.

If you can think of a way in which this money might have been accrued and declared legally, I would be interested to hear about it.

Oh I am sure you would be interested to hear about it. But when did it become your f--king business to know. The same way, what you do with your money is your business.

What if, he had earned the money legally. Paid tax on it. Saved the money for a number of years, but had no proof this was taken from the bank in small amounts over long period. Are you seriously saying, that the state has a right to all of your money, unless you keep it in a bank ?

There really is a new world order/illuminati and clandestine plan to enslave us all, we see it unfolding before us, powerless to stop it day by day. Some people are so empty headed they see nothing wrong in it. Well I do. But speak out against the state you will be branded a terrorist. So say nothing, do nothing, we are the property of the state and the state can dispose of us, our property, money and familiy, when ever and however it see fit.

My Great Grandfather and both Grandfathers have died in two world wars leaving my children, to be first generation in nearly a hundred years to have living grandparents on both sides. They died for this way of life. My God rest their souls.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Mick Dundee

[xux42]

Oh I am sure you would be interested to hear about it. But when did it become your f--king business to know. The same way, what you do with your money is your business.

Quite.

What happens to my taxed money is for me to know and the authorites not to find out.

I don't know, care or want to find out what that means in the fight against the drug trade or other crime.

Not knowing or worrying about these things is one of the perks of not being a criminal.

[Quoth]

What if, he had earned the money legally. Paid tax on it. Saved the money for a number of years, but had no proof this was taken from the bank in small amounts over long period. Are you seriously saying, that the state has a right to all of your money, unless you keep it in a bank ?

At twenty-two he must have had the most profitable paper round known to mankind!

Q

[Guest X-QUORK]

At twenty-two he must have had the most profitable paper round known to mankind!

Q

The BBC coverage gives no mention of the man's age, he could be 72 for all we know.

[Quoth]

The BBC coverage gives no mention of the man's age, he could be 72 for all we know.

Ah...my overactive imagination at work again. I thought I read 22 somewhere in the thread - must cut down on the caffeine.

Q

[Guest X-QUORK]

Ah...my overactive imagination at work again. I thought I read 22 somewhere in the thread - must cut down on the caffeine.

Q

I think somebody hypothesised such an age, probably where you got it.

[indirectapproach]

To decide whether this law is any good, look at the evil that it seeks to cure and the cost of that cure.

The evil is that some criminals can make a lot of money but the police can’t prove this money is the proceeds of crime.

The police hope that by reversing the burden of proof this evil can be cured.

And what is the cost?

Well, so far it seems to be relatively low.

We can all think of examples where people may be in possession of legal and legitimate wealth, on which tax was never payable, but are unable to “prove” its provenance.

People living, working and earning overseas don’t owe the exchequer income tax. If they return to the UK they may choose the repatriate their wealth.

These could be private security contractors who might have been working in the area of hostage negotiation.

People like that might have confidentiality agreements with the people that have paid them.

They might be independent trade consultants who have been working in the wild East or Africa.

These guys may have done stuff that Jaqui Spliff and Harriet Idiot may take a dim view of but the more nuanced elements at MI6 might not.

There are some places where it is a good idea for GB to do business but where it cannot do business with clean hands, e.g Al Yamanah arms deal. Not in the national interest to look too closely at that one. For every mammoth deal like that there are lots of baby elephants running around that add up to more than a mammoth.

They might be British citizens fleeing a meltdown, e.g Zimbabwe.

Question: “Where did you make your money?”

Answer: “Zimbabwe.”

Question: “How?”

Answer: “Farming.”

Question: “Can you prove that?”

Answer: “No Mugabe’s thugs have burnt down my house, destroyed all my records and my bank in Harare doesn’t respond to my letters, phone calls and e mails.”

We have not heard of any of these people having their money taken away.

But all it takes is someone with a grudge to make a report and an ambitious policeman under pressure to get a result and these people can have their money taken away from them. The law probably even requires the money to be taken away.

Could it ever possibly happen that it starts with them and ends with you?

Do you want to take the risk?

[carbonoid]

Let's be reasonable for just a minute (Crazy idea, this is hpc, I know...) and apply the principle of Occam's razor: The guy was probably a dealer and the plod found a way to get his money, well done the plod, I say. The amount of damage that a criminal gang could do with 67K is very substantial, probably running into the 100s of 1000s when the cost to society is factored in of thieving junkies, methadone clinics, disease, crime, etc. Let's get over the silly angsty teenage "philsophical" arguments and get real. Who wants junkies and dealers in their neighbourhood? Thought not.

[Lord D'arcy Pew]

Man has to give money back because he didn't know where it came from; try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_La_Rue

[indirectapproach]

Sure, let’s whack out a fundamental principle of English and Welsh justice (I choose my words advisedly my Scottish and Northern Irish friends because I believe this case applies to England, which falls in the jurisdiction of blah … blah …)

Let’s whack out a fundamental principle of justice just to take down a few top end drug dealers.

How important are they? How much of a threat are they to you?

When plod knocks on your door and says,

“Prove to me that you didn’t pay cash for any of your home improvements.”

Then let’s see you get over the silly angsty teenage "philsophical" arguments and get real.

And if you can't maybe plod will take your house.

[Krackersdave]

Seems fair enough to me. When you earn money legally, you should declare it, so that you pay the neccesary tax on it. In so doing you will prove its origin.

Reasons for not doing this are to avoid paying tax, which is illegal, or the activity that earned the money is illegal, for example drug dealing.

So if you want to give into drug dealers and tax dodgers, criticise this law. If that chap really had withdrawn a £100 a week and put his money under the mattress after being in a well paid salaried job, that would have been obvious from the records.

If you can think of a way in which this money might have been accrued and declared legally, I would be interested to hear about it.

Spoken like a true slave - your masters will be proud...

[D.C.]

Let's be reasonable for just a minute (Crazy idea, this is hpc, I know...) and apply the principle of Occam's razor: The guy was probably a dealer and the plod found a way to get his money, well done the plod, I say. The amount of damage that a criminal gang could do with 67K is very substantial, probably running into the 100s of 1000s when the cost to society is factored in of thieving junkies, methadone clinics, disease, crime, etc. Let's get over the silly angsty teenage "philsophical" arguments and get real. Who wants junkies and dealers in their neighbourhood? Thought not.

So carbonid, if a copper decides to come round your house and go through every item asking for an audit trail of receipts and tax returns for all of your possessions? I guess that is ok because you are probably a criminal if you can't prove the origin of every single thing you have ever purchased.

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer a system where the police were required to demonstrate a little bit of evidence of wrong doing and an impartial third party decided your guilt or innocence in a transparent way before your assets are stripped from you?

Here is another example of silly angsty concern:

Counter terrorist laws were bought in giving police 'extraordinary powers' to be used in 'extraordinary circumstances', ridiculous to think the police might ever abuse though powers.

In 2008 the MET used section 44 powers (stop & search for suspected terrorism) 170,000 times in London. Not one terrorist was charged, arrested or convicted because of the use of these powers.

Would it be 'silly' to suggest that maybe not all of those 170,000 people were terrorists?

[indirectapproach]

“If you can think of a way in which this money might have been accrued and declared legally, I would be interested to hear about it.”

Oh come on!

Think of that great movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”.

A young George Peppard plays the character of a fantastic specimen of male youth who brings pleasure to the life of a wealthy, elegant woman of a certain age. In return he receives an apartment, a wardrobe full of well cut clothes and plenty of spending money.

This movie is the most charming dramatic expression of this exchange that has been going on between the young and the not so young probably since the beginning of time. Usually this exchange passes between a rich and powerful man and a young and beautiful woman?

Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe Truman Capote could see that it happens just as often between elder women and younger men as vice versa.

Point is if plod knocks on the door of any of these colourful young beauties and demands an explanation, the young beauties for absolutely no nefarious reason whatsoever would be in considerable difficulty.

Naming their benefactor, the source of their wealth might well lead to the collapse of their benefactor’s marriage. If the benefactor was from somewhere of a puritanical bent, it might result in the collapse of the benefactor’s career.

I do not consider that any tax inspector could justify calling the “gifts” received by the George Peppard played character as earnings. I am not talking about prostitution. I am talking about something a little more sophisticated and a little more generous.

This is another example of how money whose provenance is difficult/impossible to prove, which is not taxable can be accrued legally.

Do you really want to live in a place so plain that there is no space for a young George Peppard or Audrey Hepburn or Breakfast a Tiffany’s?

[Pindar]

So, if there's a law that requires a citizen to prove the origin of a large sum of cash, why doesn't a similar law apply to the Bank of England when it creates bank credit? Is it because the government is the more powerful gang, with weapons and thugs to enforce its will? No wonder the government did all it could to disarm the population through the anti-gun laws.

[carbonoid]

ok, (sigh...) I lose. I'm going back into the recreational herb growing industry!

[Guest X-QUORK]

“If you can think of a way in which this money might have been accrued and declared legally, I would be interested to hear about it.”

Oh come on!

Think of that great movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”.

A young George Peppard plays the character of a fantastic specimen of male youth who brings pleasure to the life of a wealthy, elegant woman of a certain age. In return he receives an apartment, a wardrobe full of well cut clothes and plenty of spending money.

This movie is the most charming dramatic expression of this exchange that has been going on between the young and the not so young probably since the beginning of time. Usually this exchange passes between a rich and powerful man and a young and beautiful woman?

Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe Truman Capote could see that it happens just as often between elder women and younger men as vice versa.

Point is if plod knocks on the door of any of these colourful young beauties and demands an explanation, the young beauties for absolutely no nefarious reason whatsoever would be in considerable difficulty.

Naming their benefactor, the source of their wealth might well lead to the collapse of their benefactor’s marriage. If the benefactor was from somewhere of a puritanical bent, it might result in the collapse of the benefactor’s career.

I do not consider that any tax inspector could justify calling the “gifts” received by the George Peppard played character as earnings. I am not talking about prostitution. I am talking about something a little more sophisticated and a little more generous.

This is another example of how money whose provenance is difficult/impossible to prove, which is not taxable can be accrued legally.

Do you really want to live in a place so plain that there is no space for a young George Peppard or Audrey Hepburn or Breakfast a Tiffany’s?

What a charming post, I congratulate you sir or madam.

[dr ray]

No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right

Magna Carta.

Since this man was branded a criminal without "lawful judgement" (as a prerequisite to seizing his property) I would argue the state is in breach of the provisions of the Magna Carta.