John nailed a big part of this but I will add ... Your judgement call is that the control of illegal activity is worth the loss of various freedoms. That's fine, you are entitled to this opinion. Not everyone shares this opinion and it would be very blinkered to believe that it is only criminals who feel this way. To argue that the issue is one of there being either controls, or no controls, with a black & white choice between the two is rather straw-mannish. The actual issue is, Where do you draw the line? The scope for disagreement on this aspect is vast so I don't propose that thrash that out here. I would hope that you agree that the degree of control that government exercises is a question that has more than one acceptable answer.
Now who's being disingenuous? When you conduct transactions by cash, there is no record and no audit trail; when you conduct transactions via a bank account or card, there is an audit trail. The topic under discussion in this thread is the right (or lack of it) of people to conduct large transactions by cash thereby suppressing any record and leaving no audit trail. If you conduct a perfectly legal transaction, it is nobody's business. But who is to say it is perfectly legal? You allege, no doubt, that it is legal - but criminals and wrongdoers also allege that their transactions are perfectly legal too. So your assertion that your actions are legal is not enough to exempt you from scrutiny, is it?
The topic of this thread is "The Demise of Cash" and is independent of the size of the transaction. We are all subject to scrutiny, the question is whether it is reasonable scrutiny based upon a presumption of innocence. It would be unreasonable to expect me to have to prove my innocence without what you legal chaps call prima facie evidence. People speed Pete, please prove to me that you didn't speed whilst out today. Don't think this is a trivial question, innocent victims die because of irresponsible speeders.
I suspect that criminals would hold precisely the opposite view to the one you are attributing to them! You appear to be saying that there are people who hold the opinion that there should be various activities which are exempt from investigation, even for purposes of the controlling of crime. Maybe there are some extreme libertarians who hold such a view, along with criminals, but the vast majority of people do not. If there were blind spots, aspects of life and activities which were not susceptible to legal investigation, criminals would certainly exploit those blind spots enthusiastically.
See post #67. I have already set out my view on how far the presumption of innocence does and does not take us.
If my wife's dead body was discovered, apparently murdered, no doubt the police would want to carry out a highly detailed investigation into every aspect of my affairs, including financial/medical/sexual matters which I (as an innocent man) would rather keep private and which I would strongly object to having investigated. So according to you, my objections should prevail and the intrusive police investigation should not be permitted. Following that principle, few murders would ever be solved!
I see from your transactions records Pete that you have recently purchased CD-RWs and DVD-RWs. On the basis that some people have been known to use such items to "pirate" copyrighted material - music and films for instance - will you kindly turn over all computers, smartphones, etc for scrutiny? I appear to be asking you but really, I am telling you, you have to hand it all over. Copyright infringement is theft!
As I stated in my earlyer post long live the king. Hide it bury it or buy an expensive car for your mothering law and sell it on 6 months later all bad practice and should not be done. Must admit I like reading Peter 1950 posts, as always nice/clear and proper English :Cigar:unlike my crap
1000 euros aint a lot really. everything is set up where you cant live without them. now there dictating what you can deposit with them them. you can only assume the french are happy with that, otherwise they wouldn't allow it to happen right?. after all they would of voted for a party that supported or proposed it?. or is this a corporate decision. maybe i should read the full O.P.
In this case there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, a dead body, upon which to base an investigation, your objections should not prevail, and I have never suggested otherwise with regard to cash transactions when there is evidence of wrongdoing. How about responding to post 79 where there is no equivalent of a "dead body" or even evidence of any wrong doing but just the possibility of wrong doing ?
I specified it was a hypothetical suitcase, so an unlimited amount of hypothetical cash would fit into it just fine.
Sorry but do keep up. It was 1 million pounds sterling, highest denomination = £50 = a fuck sight bigger pile than in that photo = doesn't fit. Unless you use Pete's infinite monkey case.
It is true that the "clear evidence of wrongdoing" cases are the easy ones. A dead body with a knife sticking out of its back, a wife claiming her husband or someone has assaulted her, the scene of an armed robbery - in these cases the police know at the outset that a crime has definitely or probably been committed. Financial matters are rarely so clear cut. In cases of bribery and corruption, drug dealing, smuggling, tax evasion, blackmail, extortion, etc at the outset there is no evidence at all. The perpetrators go to great lengths to conceal their tracks. The offences are clandestine. The police do not have any idea that an offence is being committed until long after the event, or ever. If the police, the prosecutors and the courts are to have any chance of addressing these kinds of offences, they surely have to start somewhere. Can they not start until after there is already "clear evidence of wrongdoing"? For people to be in possession of large sums of cash without explanation is not, of course, an offence. But it is suspicious, and might justify further enquiries. There is also the question of income tax. Income received is required by law to be declared to the Inland Revenue, and tax paid upon it (with some exceptions). If someone is in possession of money in amounts far beyond what they have declared, and for which they cannot account, at the least it gives rise to a suspicion of tax evasion and surely the IR should investigate. After all, we are not in Greece.
