Re: Transferring money limits
 

No, no, and no. That is not how civil forfeiture works, and the very reason it is so unfair, that the police can cause you gross inconvenience, and potentially some costs too, for legal representation, is why some people are campaigning to change the law.

And to be clear, the law doesn't just apply at airports and sea ports. If the police find you walking down the street with a hold all full of cash they can take it under civil forfeiture. And customs can take it even if you are carrying documentation to "prove" it's source.

Re: Transferring money limits
 

you are discussing the 3rd world country of murica where i would not tread by choice, in more civilised countries, you win big time when the jobsworths screw up, but i see in murica things are improving? it is now not allowed without criminal convictions in several areas.

I always thought that the law in murica was about money, if you have it you can win, i guess if they take it off you they are improving their chances.

Re: Transferring money limits
 

Er, as I said above, the same law exists in the UK. And civil forfeiture does NOT require a conviction, the police, sheriff's deputies, US customs can more or less relieve anyone of cash they find them carrying.

But I don't think you understand what "civil forfeiture" means - it is NOT confiscation, removing the money permanently, which, yes, does require a conviction.

Civil forfeiture is only the "temporary" removal of the money - you just have to show up in court and provide a plausible explanation, with sufficient evidence, as to where the money came from and what you were doing with it. The argument being that an honest person will be able to provide such evidence, and a drug dealer or money launderer will scamper away into the shadows.

Re: Transferring money limits
 

Nope, its different, in the uk, i dont think civil collections relevant, its under POCA. There could be no civil collection unless its subsequent to collect say compensation for a victim , its a criminal matter, the police claiming your cash is a proceed of crime, which they have to have at least circumstantial evidence of for the holder. If they havent - they are in trouble themselves and they will be compensating you. Interestingly failure to disclose is itself an offence, so always do

Proceeds of Crime Act Money Laundering Offences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

Re: Transferring money limits
 

You're still barking up the wrong tree. Proceeds of crime and civil forfeiture are entirely separate things.

Re: Transferring money limits
 

Nope - youre wrong - nothing civil about it, its poca

Woman Wins Appeal Over Seized Cash - Heart Sussex News

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/busi...leaving-the-uk

Border Agency forced to hand back £700,000 seized from the luggage of billionaire who said the cash was 'peanuts' to him | Daily Mail Online

Re: Transferring money limits
 

So long as you don't transfer multiple amounts below the reporting limit there's really no reason to avoid multiple transactions. Now, if you send 50 payments of 9999 CAD each, then expect trouble for sure.

Re: Transferring money limits
 

Correct, more or less .... So long as the bank is aware that you will be transferring, say, C$500,000 there is likely no harm in breaking into whatever amount you like of C$10,000 (or equivalent in another currency), or more. But if you start sending say C$25,000 every week for several months at a stretch and haven't pre-informed your bank, the consequences might not be quite what you expected.

Re: Transferring money limits
 

Yes, I was wrong. :o Civil forfeiture appears to be largely a US phenomenon, and I can't see anything about pre-emptive seizures of cash, i.e. prior to a conviction (or in anticipation of a conviction) in the UK, other than at a port of entry.

Re: Transferring money limits
 

Really not true - I know about this as I've recently worked for one of the big 5 and have been involved with AML quite extensively. For payments of 10K or more, so long as there isn't some specific trigger - e.g. government agency request to monitor, politically exposed person, country of origin, no good explanation of source in the case the bank asks the client about it, large withdrawals in cash following the deposit, onward payments to other jurisdictions etc - your bank is very unlikely to do anything and, if they do, it will be limited to calling you up and asking what the source of the funds is. On the other hand, multiple payments over any period of just under 10K will make them much more interested as it will look like you're trying to avoid the 10K limit that causes the transaction to be logged with Fintrac.

On the government agency side, multiple payments of 10K or more over a period might trigger some activity but, so long as it tallies with what you've reported on your tax return (and T1135 if relevant) you'd be unlikely to ever hear about it - same applies to one off large transfers.

A few years ago this may all have been a bit different but, with the changes in the FX transfers market, it's now extremely common for people to make multiple smaller transfers (e.g. because of online transfer limits) rather than one large one. Albeit it's a small sample set, but I moved my UK assets to Canada two years back in multiple 25K GBP chunks, partly because that was the online transfer limit from by bank there but, also, because I wanted to average out the exchange rate, and have not heard a peep from the CRA, RCMP, CSIS or whoever. Having said that, all the assets involved had been carefully declared on my T1135 over multiple years so, if you've been less than scrupulous in that respect, your mileage may vary (but that would apply to a single large payment too).

Re: Transferring money limits
 

The problem is that the bank may or may not ask, and considering the amount of effort required to tell your bank that you will be sending them approximately $200,000 over the next three months, say from the sale of your home, I can't see any good reason not to tell them.

Otherwise your post is pretty good, just spoiled by three words.