The I.R.S. has been
seizing the money of people who have made consistent cash deposits under
$10,000 without pressing charges of any wrongdoing.
Using a
law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking
their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and
wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious
crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal
complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.
“They’re
going after people who are really not criminals,” said David Smith, a former
federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia.
“They’re middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.”
This news comes not only after increased criticism of corrupt
I.R.S. practices, as we saw in class, but also following reports of similar issues
around civil forfeiture in other public service bodies such as law enforcement.
As John Oliver put it on his show Last Week Tonight: while people
are innocent until proven guilty, money and property are not. For more of his
humorous take on civil forfeiture and all its horror check out the full episode.
Do these corrupt practices call for cuts to the power of (and tax revenue given to) the I.R.S. and/or law enforcement? Is this simply a symptom of government getting too big? Or do these bodies need other groups to oversee and audit them? How do incidences like these affect citizens' trust in government? How can a country be negatively affected if citizens become apathetic and distrustful of government agencies? Other thoughts/comments?
Do these corrupt practices call for cuts to the power of (and tax revenue given to) the I.R.S. and/or law enforcement? Is this simply a symptom of government getting too big? Or do these bodies need other groups to oversee and audit them? How do incidences like these affect citizens' trust in government? How can a country be negatively affected if citizens become apathetic and distrustful of government agencies? Other thoughts/comments?
I believe the problem arises in the incentives provided to officers. Since departments see a large proportion of confiscated funds lead directly to their benefit, officers show a bias in decision making when faced with a borderline case. These incentives have led to an extraordinary large number of confiscations. The law is designed to help the police in drug cases, but allowing the police department to use the money for its own purposes leads to cops taking advantage of the law. I don't see this as being an issue of government becoming too large, but an issue of the incentives provided to officers confiscating cash. The problem lies within the law, not the size of government.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with this policy. The law does exist for a reason. The way that the IRS does begin tracking cash is not by a random $10,000 deposit. At banks, the tellers are trained to report suspicious activity which includes consistent cash deposits that are just below $10,000. I also don't see why middle-class citizens would make consistent cash deposits just below the $10,000 line. It would make more sense if this were a one time offense, however many times it is not. It is possible that the government is trying to advantage of this policy, which means that more government regulation should be used to monitor IRS officers' actions. I disagree that the problem lies within the law, because the law has successfully stopped drug traffickers and other criminals from "cleaning their money" through the US monetary system.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to hear I'm not the only one who watches John Oliver. i think this is definitely a sign of the government becoming too powerful. Both the IRS and law enforcement are taking advantage of the system for personal gains and often times the victim is forced to give up because he or she either does not have the resources to fight the accusation or the amount of red tape encountered just smothers them. I definitely believe that the IRS and law enforcement need to be watched by some sort of an overseer.
ReplyDelete