Legislators Send Letter To Treasury Department Demanding Release Of Funds Seized In Bogus Structuring Case
from the IRS:-we-won't-do-this-anymore,-but-probably-not-any-LESS,-either dept
Asset forfeiture finally found its way into the mainstream after years of coverage by media outsiders. The sudden increase in negative attention brought about some needed reform efforts. The DOJ issued new guidelines on civil asset forfeiture, as did the IRS, which announced it would no longer pursue seizure of funds under "structuring" statutes unless there was evidence the money came from criminal sources.
One of the victims of the IRS's bogus "structuring" seizures (made pre-policy shift) is Randy Sowers, a dairy farmer who had $63,000 seized by the agency in 2012. The cash came from sales made at local farmers' markets, but the IRS viewed it as a criminal act simply because Sowers never topped the magical $10,000 mark with his deposits.
The Sowers were "working" with the IRS to have the funds returned (this implies a modicum of due process that doesn't actually exist in civil forfeiture). Then Randy Sowers almost screwed things up, as Melissa Quinn of the Daily Signal reports.
While the couple was in the midst of settlement negotiations with the government, hoping to have most of their money returned, Randy Sowers spoke with a reporter from The City Paper in Baltimore, Md., about his experience with structuring and civil asset forfeiture.This attitude seems to be common to IRS prosecutors. They don't mind taking your money for the flimsiest of reasons and they don't mind fighting you every step of the way should you choose to challenge the seizure, but goddamn if it doesn't piss them off if you decide to discuss your situation in public.
On the day the article was published, Stefan Cassella, the assistant U.S. attorney overseeing Sowers’ structuring case, told the family’s lawyer he had a “problem” and was no longer willing to negotiate a settlement amount, according to court filings.
If you'll recall, another victim of a bogus structuring seizure took his case (mostly anonymously) to a Congressional hearing. The prosecutor in that case reacted just as badly to the public airing of IRS-related grievances. He sent a letter to the Institute of Justice (which is representing the convenience store owner who had $107,000 seized by the IRS) that basically stated any publicity resulting from this would only harm this person's case. Because vindictiveness.
I do not know who did that, and I am accusing no one, but it was not from our office and could only have come from your clients. That was certainly not my intent in making this available. Whoever made [the document] public may serve their own interest but will not help this particular case…The prosecutor then offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal of 50% of the seized cash back. C-store owner Lyndon McLellan chose the latter.
Your client needs to resolve this or litigate it. But publicity about it doesn't help. It just ratchets up feelings in the agency.
Sowers, however, did eventually settle with the IRS, receiving (coincidence?!) half of the seized funds. Why settle when you're clearly in the right? Because it's tough to run a business when your liquid assets have suddenly vanished. Half is better than nothing, especially if you want to remain solvent.
Now, he wants the other half. And he's brought backup.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee is coming together to ask the Treasury Department to return nearly $30,000 it seized from Maryland dairy farmers in 2012.The letter reminds the Treasury Department that the seizure program is in place to stop money laundering, drug trafficking and disrupt the funding of terrorist organizations. It is not just a quick and dirty way for the government to take money from cash-heavy businesses who frequently deposit cash in sub-$10,000 quantities. In many of these cases, it appears business owners have received bad advice from well-meaning family members or friends. In other cases, the bad advice comes from the bank employees themselves. What doesn't appear to be integral to these disputed cases is any link to criminal activity.
The letter, sent August 11 to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, calls on the agency to return $29,500 the Internal Revenue Service seized from Frederick-based dairy farmers Randy and Karen Sowers through civil asset forfeiture.
The lawmakers also asked Lew to review similar cases and return money seized by the tax agency under the practice.
A very long petition for the return of the money has been lodged with the DOJ. It points out that under the agency's current rules, the sort of seizure they've experienced would not even be initiated. It also points out that the couple was apologized to by several members of the Congressional committee and the IRS Commissioner himself. And yet, the Treasury Department refuses to cede any ground on the other half of the Sowers' funds. Hopefully, a three-page letter from a bunch of legislators will compel the return of the Sowers' money -- something their 209-page complaint has yet to accomplish.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, asset seizure, irs, legislators, treasury department
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hmpff...
Still not good enough!!! Evidence is in the eye of the beholder!
Innocent until proven guilty, but not these days eh?! Really speaks volumes about our broken society where automatic guilt is the order of the day upon accusation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmpff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically it hasn't been challenged because none of the politicians feel like committing professional suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/kaley_v_united_states_ter rible_supreme_court_decision_lets_the_government.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are rewarded for bad behavior you will just keep behaving badly; on the other hand ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just the IRS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too bad that psychopaths (Look up the medical definition) don't learn from punishment of themselves and only poorly of others. If they keep their jobs, they'll just get more vicious when called out on this nonsense. This is morally no different than Indian women being intimidated into not filing rape charges. Abuse like this is vile and if left unchecked, only gets more brazen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5th Amendment
What part of that don't you understand, Mr. Government Man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5th Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5th Amendment
The fact that that property has an owner and that owner has rights is simply ignored.
By the logic of asset forfeiture laws, you could legally mug someone -- and it would not be armed robbery -- so long as you only pointed your gun at their wallet, not them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IRS? what about the TSA?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/30/why-the-tsa-posted-a-photo-of-cash-fi lled-luggage-on-twitter/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feelings in the Agency
What! - Agencies are supposed to be professional - they aren't supposed to have "feelings".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make them pay 100% penalties on top
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make them pay 100% penalties on top
A million dollars a day, might get someone's attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amend the Law Stuff the Letter
Monitoring a persons bank deposits are the actions of a totalitarian government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the subject of Money Laundering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: on the subject of Money Laundering
Basics of Money Laundering:
You receive a large amount of cash income from your criminal enterprise. You can’t use it to buy or invest in anything significant without raising red flags with the cops and/or taxman. You can’t just put it in the bank, because the bank has to report large deposits. Either way, the IRS will come around asking questions about where that money came from and why didn’t you declare it on your tax return. (Of course you couldn’t declare it, because you can’t account for how you got it without getting in even more trouble.)
So what you do is you open a legitimate business that routinely deals in a lot of smallish cash transactions — a strip club, a car wash, a pool hall, a bar — and you add chunks of your dirty money to the clean declarable income the front business brings in. If your bar legitimately grosses $50,000/month, it becomes $58,000, it’s not going to raise any eyebrows. Now your dirty money has a clean source that you can report on your tax return, and you’re free to spend how you like (minus Uncle Sugar’s cut.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: on the subject of Money Laundering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since the money seems to vanish rather fast and these agencies seem to have their fingers in a lot of criminal related pies that they should be stopping but seem to be encouraging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The question is not if this is done, but rather how much from illegal seizures goes into illegal ventures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That right there is the problem; They're asking the treasury department to return the money that they stole.
Our government is supposed to have checks and balances to prevent any one portion from abusing their power, but as this incident proves, there are no meaningful checks or balances. One portion of the government abuses it's authority and all the rest of the government can do is send a strongly worded request and hope that they comply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought. .
I hate to quote the N.R.A. but, if guns don't kill people, people kill people ; then money doesn't commit crimes, people commit crimes.
They would probably charge your suit with a crime if it was expensive enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a thought. .
That would make it a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a customer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm a customer
But maybe my tin-foil hat is a little snug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm a customer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm a customer
Me too, and not just for local companies, but for all companies. Using a card at a store is essentially the same as using an affinity card (which I avoid like the plague): it's one of the primary ways that stores spy on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm a customer
CASH ACCEPTED
with proper I.D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm a customer
“That John Fenderson sure is buying a lot of ham lately… Let’s blackmail him by threatening to pass this info on to his Orthodox rabbi”
Believe me, nobody cares about tying your groceries to your real identity. My Safeway card has a made-up phone number and for some reason thinks my name is Mariana Ramos. The only reason they keep track is so they can try to sell you more stuff. If ham consumers statistically tend to also buy eggs or Swiss cheese, the store guesses you’d be interested in those products too and prints out special coupons to entice you. That’s all. Without the affinity card data you get no coupons, or random coupons for things you have no interest in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm a customer
Who said I thought they had a sinister purpose? Their purpose is obvious: marketing. That doesn't make it any less spying, though.
Also, that data has been used for sinister purposes. There have been cases where customers have sued stores and the stores have brought up their purchasing history in an attempt to smear their character ("this guy buys an awful lot of beer...")
Also also, it's a dead certainty that that data is being provided to others, where it is combined with all the other data gathered about you, which amounts to an extreme and dangerous invasion of your privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best Job I Ever Had!!
but.... but....
That'll mean that the IRS will have to draw the 29 grand from petty cash, because hookers and coke dealers do not do refunds.
But not to worry, cuz after all, even the 3 million in petty cash is just more of the tax payer's money. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal = DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]