Comment by bee_rider
3 days ago
I don’t think that really is the better question. It’s their money, if they want to do silly things with it that’s up to them.
3 days ago
I don’t think that really is the better question. It’s their money, if they want to do silly things with it that’s up to them.
Yes, but they are now aiming to use these funds to buy real estate and of course that is going to raise a bunch of flags. If the government would accept this without challenge criminals would suddenly be left all kinds of crazy inheritances. At a minimum you'd expect some documentation of how that money landed in their possession in the first place, for instance a will, a final balance of an estate and so on.
I've handled a couple of these for family members and the amount of paperwork around even a minor inheritance can be pretty impressive.
I'd expect a presumption of innocence, and at the very least I'd expect some documentation from the government showing probable cause of a specific crime the money was involved in before blocking the transaction. The presumptive innocent party shouldn't have to provide anything by default.
You have a presumption of innocence up to a certain amount. After that there is a - minor - burden of proof. Not a single time that this happened to me did any of this appear to me to be unduly burdensome or invasive, and whoever did the investigation went out of their way to state that they did these checks as a formality, not because I was suspected to be in any way out of line. I don't recall it ever taking more than a few minutes (if that) either.
If I showed up with 50K in cash at the tellers window or a local notary to pay in part for a house tomorrow morning though I would expect the conversation would be an entirely different one.
6 replies →
I have this idea in my head that I would rather 100 criminals get away with "all kinds of crazy inheritances" than even 1 regular person get screwed over by these sorts of financial controls.