The Government Can Seize $35K Of Your Money With Little Warning
Institute for Justice has taken the case of Detroit area grocery store owner Tarik (Terry) Dehko. Eric D. Lawrence writes in the Detroit Free Press that the IRS seized more than $35K from his bank account:
Dehko was not charged with a crime, but the IRS, according to court records, claims he violated federal law with the type of cash deposits he made into the store's bank account, which the government drained in January.Dehko and his daughter, Sandy Thomas, who works part time at the store -- Schott's Market on East 14 Mile -- have filed suit in federal court Wednesday in an attempt to get the case before a judge. They want their money returned, and they want to stop similar actions in the future.
Dehko, 69, who came to the U.S. from Baghdad, Iraq, in 1970, calls the U.S. the land of opportunity, but he does not understand how the government can seize his money without warning and, according to him, without cause.
...According to the court filings, the IRS claims Dehko skirted rules that deposits greater than $10,000 be reported by making many smaller deposits. Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which is working on Dehko's behalf, said the deposits were often in the $9,000 range, but that Dehko made regular deposits in those amounts because his insurance policy will not cover him for loss or theft of more than $10,000 in cash in the store.
Dehko said a federal agent came to his store in January and told him his funds were being seized, and Dehko has been fighting ever since. Dehko noted that the government offered to settle with him, but the offer was for 20% of what was seized, so he rejected it. The court filings note that the IRS had found no violations during an audit of Dehko's books in April 2012.
Supreme government arrogance. And guess what's responsible for it?
If you did not say "The War on Drugs," you're not paying attention.
mpetrie98 at September 29, 2013 4:05 PM
I would propose an amendment to the Constitution, or a revision to an existing one, that states that the government shall not seize ones assets without due process, nor shall the government nor the states appoint any such agency with the power to seize assets without due process.
I would do this, but Isab the Snob thinks that indulging such exercises is worthy only of Junior High School.
Apparently, anyone who's ever proposed an Amendment to the Constitution, even those that are successful, are guilty of a Junior High School mentality.
That John A. Bingham. So adolescent.
Patrick at September 29, 2013 6:00 PM
A short "News in the State" article was in the local paper this week. Government seized $100K in cash at a traffic stop. Probably (reading between the lines) they suspected it to be drug money. But the legal justification was appalling. Apparently it is illegal in this state to drive around with more than $10K in cash if you don't have a "courier's license" (with its attendant reporting rules).
So if you want to buy a nice used car, cash on the barrel head, you are in violation of the law if that car costs $11K and you drive over to the dude's house to swap dollars for title.
flbeachmom at September 29, 2013 6:36 PM
Another government end run around the Constitution.
Cousin Dave at September 29, 2013 6:45 PM
"I would do this, but Isab the Snob thinks that indulging such exercises is worthy only of Junior High School."
Well, gee, you must be being clever. Such a thing is already there. Perhaps you intend some improvements that will force government to observe these provisions?
Radwaste at September 29, 2013 8:03 PM
Indeed. As another blogger has said, the answer is really rather simple: rope.
This hasn't happened just yet, but it is only a matter of time. Some government twit will take the wrong person's possessions, and will suffer a mysterious death a few days later.
Once the flames start, it will be difficult to put them out.
a_random_guy at September 30, 2013 2:53 AM
I would propose an amendment to the Constitution, or a revision to an existing one, that states that the government shall not seize ones assets without due process, nor shall the government nor the states appoint any such agency with the power to seize assets without due process.
Really? But according to the law and court rulings it is legal, just like the TSA, and we all know how you so dislike to give personal comments on points of settled law
definatly not lujlp so feel free to read this post at September 30, 2013 5:01 AM
Its called smurfing. Eliot Spitzer did the same thing to avoid detection of all of his whore payments. Take a guess how much time he served for his banking shenanigans?
Usually smurfing is an add on charge to another crime like tax evasion. The kicker is Mr. Dehko's taxes are in order. There is a word for when your money is taken for no reason. It is called theft.
PS Spitzer never served any time for his smurfing but you probably already guessed that.
Shtetl G at October 1, 2013 1:48 PM
Leave a comment