U.S. Customs Confiscates $58,000 From Ohio Family

[WalnutBaron]

This is one of those stories that makes you sick. An Albanian family who became naturalized U.S. citizens in 2010 lost nearly all of their savings totaling more than $58,000 at a security checkpoint at Cleveland Hopkins Airport last October. Authorities assumed the cash had been obtained illegally and took it, but did not charge anyone in the family with a crime.

The family has now been forced to obtain legal counsel and sue the U.S. Customs Department for return of their money.

Sad, scary, and despicable.

 

[bluehende]

Here is a John Oliver treatise on this.

 

[Sapper]

How the US government can take assets with out conviction of a crime IS criminal behavior by our government. It makes me sick.

 

[billymach4]

How can you believe this situation. Part of the reason you need to take a step back and wait for details

 

[bluehende]

How can you believe this situation. Part of the reason you need to take a step back and wait for details

Very easily as details are given in the article from a reliable news source. Also watch the John Oliver video. In my opinion if they cannot charge them with a crime they have no right to take their property.

 

[billymach4]

Didn't read the story really don't care. Who walks around in an airport with $$58,000 in cash. Custom probably thought it was Drug Money.

Full disclosure I stayed at a Marriott last night kind of lousy night sleep on a three-hour bus trip now I I responded to this post because I was bored. And I miss the banter of Tug. Been awhile since I've visited.

As far as John Oliver is concerned he's a good comedian. And I am sure there is a good reason for seizing their cash. Unlike some others in our country I believe in the better good of our government

 

[WalnutBaron]

In my opinion if they cannot charge them with a crime they have no right to take their property.

The John Oliver video was an eye-opener for me. I admit to being completely ignorant to this kind of gross overreach by various law enforcement agencies in our country. The truly scary part of this, of course, is realizing that this sort of thing can happen to any of us. If certain of our elected officials claim to be in favor of smaller government, getting a federal law passed that prevents law enforcement from feathering their own nest with these seized assets is a good place to start. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they even imagined this kind of thing is happening with frequency in the Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave.

 

[klpca]

Didn't read the story really don't care. Who walks around in an airport with $$58,000 in cash. Custom probably thought it was Drug Money.

Full disclosure I stayed at a Marriott last night kind of lousy night sleep on a three-hour bus trip now I I responded to this post because I was bored. And I miss the banter of Tug. Been awhile since I've visited.

As far as John Oliver is concerned he's a good comedian. And I am sure there is a good reason for seizing their cash. Unlike some others in our country I believe in the better good of our government

While I agree that there can be another side to the story, you really should read the article. There's quite a bit of information offered up that answers your questions. And if the facts hold up in this case it is an egregious situation.

 

[WalnutBaron]

Didn't read the story really don't care.

With respect, if you're not even going to read the story, how can you knowledgeably engage with others who have? In my case, I've learned a ton today about civil property seizures by law enforcement agencies in America--and it makes me sick to think of the abuse of private citizens' rights who are victimized by this kind of overreach of power.

 

[ace2000]

To quote the source:

"Customs says it suspects that the petitioner in the case, Rustem Kazazi, was involved in smuggling, drug trafficking or money laundering."

Does anyone here know why Customs suspects the individual involved? The answer is NO! So, until we know those reasons, how in the world are we supposed to make an educated judgement? Oh, I forgot... the news media has once again given one side of the facts, and of course presents it in a such a way to totally enflame the situation to the highest degree. If proven that Customs was correct in the assumptions, I'm sure we'll all see a complete apology by all the ones who were wrong? Naw, that's just not how it works in our society. But, who cares?

My vote is that we wait for the trial to play out, and then make the assumptions.

 

[bluehende]

To quote the source:

"Customs says it suspects that the petitioner in the case, Rustem Kazazi, was involved in smuggling, drug trafficking or money laundering."

Does anyone here know why Customs suspects the individual involved? The answer is NO! So, until we know those reasons, how in the world are we supposed to make an educated judgement? Oh, I forgot... the news media has once again given one side of the facts, and of course presents it in a such a way to totally enflame the situation to the highest degree. If proven that Customs was correct in the assumptions, I'm sure we'll all see a complete apology by all the ones who were wrong? Naw, that's just not how it works in our society. But, who cares?

My vote is that we wait for the trial to play out, and then make the assumptions.

Your argument sounds good until you use the word suspect as guilty. Nowhere should anyone lose their property because someone suspects they are committing a crime. Again since no charges were filed they obviously do not have enough evidence.

I would note that the money was seized in Oct. He has not been charged. Why not? Isn't it much more likely that the only evidence they have is the cash. He gave a reasonable explanation and had not broken any law. Since the paper had comments from the authority (one of which was proven wrong) at any time they could provide some evidence of a crime.

It is real easy to blame the media. They cannot defend themselves and you have to provide no evidence.

 

[ace2000]

Your argument sounds good until you use the word suspect as guilty.

You lost me from the beginning. The media source from the link above used the word "suspect", I was quoting them.

So, you would rather just assume they're completely innocent? How would you even have a decent guess at this point? The source also mentions that Customs cannot comment on the case, due to the upcoming trial. Why can't you wait until we hear both sides? That's my point, let's wait till we get the facts.

 

[bizaro86]

I don't think it's appropriate to punish people unless you can prove (in a court) they have broken the law.

In this case, since they aren't even trying to prove that, they should give the money back.

 

[bluehende]

You lost me from the beginning. The media source from the link above used the word "suspect", I was quoting them.

So, you would rather just assume they're completely innocent? How would you even have a decent guess at this point? The source also mentions that Customs cannot comment on the case, due to the upcoming trial. Why can't you wait until we hear both sides? That's my point, let's wait till we get the facts.

Isn't that the basis of our law? What you are saying is everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Without any charges that is exactly what this is.

The trial you are talking about is the one where the money has to prove it is innocent. It is not a criminal trial of the person. No other side will be given. I would whole heartedly agree with you if there was an impending criminal trial.

I cannot fathom Americans want to have a policy where you can lose everything you have because a government official suspects you did something wrong. Watch the John Oliver Video or note in the article how much is seized and how much of that is seized from people who are never charged with a crime.


If the Washington Post is suspect here is an article from the National Review.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/civil-asset-forfeiture-police-abuse-clarence-thomas/

 

[vacationhopeful]

Nothing is an innocent inquiry by any inverestigating-type person or authority. Gossip starts somewheres, right?

Forfiture funds are use for educational, outside training, seminars & equipment of the policing authority. Not for general good of the people in the harmed community or the rehab or to reduce general costs of the goverment. It is for 'the extras'.

If 2 people (with 6" lettering saying "DEA" on their emblazed jacket front & back) 'walk' you out of your home's front door into a 4 door dark government licensed car ... your neighbors would NEVER conclude "Drug Enforcement Agents", right?.

 

[VacationForever]

The issue with civil forfeiture law is that it gets abused and even if it is 0.1% of law enforcement that abuses it, it creates hell for the innocent victims. Losing a house or a car is not trivial. Congress needs to kill this law.

 

[geist1223]

Whenever you are takimg large sums of currency in or out of a country there are declaration forms you have to fill out. If you don't and they find it that is when the problems start. Almost every Country has Rules concerning how much cash you can bring in or take out. Violate them at your peril.

 

[bluehende]

Whenever you are takimg large sums of currency in or out of a country there are declaration forms you have to fill out. If you don't and they find it that is when the problems start. Almost every Country has Rules concerning how much cash you can bring in or take out. Violate them at your peril.

The article addressed this. He was on a leg to Newark

 

[Sapper]

To quote the source:

"Customs says it suspects that the petitioner in the case, Rustem Kazazi, was involved in smuggling, drug trafficking or money laundering."

Does anyone here know why Customs suspects the individual involved? The answer is NO! So, until we know those reasons, how in the world are we supposed to make an educated judgement? Oh, I forgot... the news media has once again given one side of the facts, and of course presents it in a such a way to totally enflame the situation to the highest degree. If proven that Customs was correct in the assumptions, I'm sure we'll all see a complete apology by all the ones who were wrong? Naw, that's just not how it works in our society. But, who cares?

My vote is that we wait for the trial to play out, and then make the assumptions.

The fact he was never charged with a crime tells me the government's lawyer told Customs they didn't have a case. Why should his property be taken with out conviction of a crime? Anywhere else, this action would be called theft.

There will be no criminal trial as he was not charged with a crime.

You lost me from the beginning. The media source from the link above used the word "suspect", I was quoting them.

So, you would rather just assume they're completely innocent? How would you even have a decent guess at this point? The source also mentions that Customs cannot comment on the case, due to the upcoming trial. Why can't you wait until we hear both sides? That's my point, let's wait till we get the facts.

The case Customs cannot comment on is not to try this man, or any criminal activity on his part. The trial is for this man to get his property returned.



This law is a national disgrace. Personal property should not be taken unless there is a conviction of criminal activity tied to the property in question by a judge and jury.

 

[dioxide45]

The fact he was never charged with a crime tells me the government's lawyer told Customs they didn't have a case. Why should his property be taken with out conviction of a crime? Anywhere else, this action would be called theft.

There will be no criminal trial as he was not charged with a crime.




The case Customs cannot comment on is not to try this man, or any criminal activity on his part. The trial is for this man to get his property returned.



This law is a national disgrace. Personal property should not be taken unless there is a conviction of criminal activity tied to the property in question by a judge and jury.

I can understand why the need to take the property in the first place, it could be used for illegal activity while a possible criminal has it. Just think if that money was destined for terrorists overseas. If they had been allowed to keep it, it could have gone to the wrong people. I understand innocent until proven guilty, but the case of confiscating the property makes sense. However, it should be returned if no charges are bought against the person.

 

[dioxide45]

The fact he was never charged with a crime tells me the government's lawyer told Customs they didn't have a case. Why should his property be taken with out conviction of a crime? Anywhere else, this action would be called theft.

There will be no criminal trial as he was not charged with a crime.




The case Customs cannot comment on is not to try this man, or any criminal activity on his part. The trial is for this man to get his property returned.



This law is a national disgrace. Personal property should not be taken unless there is a conviction of criminal activity tied to the property in question by a judge and jury.

I can understand why the need to take the property in the first place, it could be used for illegal activity while a possible criminal has it. Just think if that money was destined for terrorists overseas. If they had been allowed to keep it, it could have gone to the wrong people. I understand innocent until proven guilty, but the case of confiscating the property makes sense. However, it should be returned if no charges are bought against the person.

 

[Sapper]

I can understand why the need to take the property in the first place, it could be used for illegal activity while a possible criminal has it. Just think if that money was destined for terrorists overseas. If they had been allowed to keep it, it could have gone to the wrong people. I understand innocent until proven guilty, but the case of confiscating the property makes sense. However, it should be returned if no charges are bought against the person.

Yes, I agree, a temporary taking while charges are brought and case is tried. If found guilty, then the property should be forfeit. If found innocent, the property should be returned, and the government should have to pay for any problems their temporary taking caused. Also agree, if no charges are brought, the property should be returned with an apology. There should also be a time limit the government has to bring charges, otherwise they could just draw the time table out indefinitely.

 

[Passepartout]

This may get deleted by a mod, but that's OK. Our government is taking advantage of anything that can take away people's assets and freedoms except those are SPECIFICALLY guaranteed by law. If any question exists, the Gov't takes the 'benefit of the doubt' until a court rules for the individual. Then they have loaded the courts with judges noted for ruling in favor of the government. Quick- someone quote this!

 

[vacationhopeful]

I sometimes have sums of cash around .... maybe every few months. In my business, there is ebbs and flows of transactions. I usually take cashier's checks for larger sums, questionable sources or DEPOSITS, but some people still get paid in cash or do NOT have checking accounts (due to debts, judgments, ex-spouse or their 'cash' business income).

I would NEVER travel with more than a $500 in cash. I have found USPS Money Orders work real well as "cashier's checks". Plus, they can be cash FREE at any US Post Offices if you have photo id.

 

[Sapper]

I would NEVER travel with more than a $500 in cash. I have found USPS Money Orders work real well as "cashier's checks". Plus, they can be cash FREE at any US Post Offices if you have photo id.

They have made some changes on USPS money orders. Max on a single order is $1k, max per day is $10k. There was a time (more than a decade ago) where the max per order was $10k, and I would get multiple in a single day (all at the same time, same teller). Can't do that anymore.

https://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive20030810/S020.htm