Gymnasts Testify - FBI under fire

[Sparko]

I think you have it in reverse. Someone who isn't a criminal would be more likely to keep cash in an SD for the reasons I explained previously, because they wouldn't expect a criminal organization like the feds to confiscate it or have the legal grounds to do it, whereas an actual criminal wouldn't think that way.

Except they actually do use SD boxes for the reasons I mentioned.

And it takes a warrant to search an SD box. Which is usually harder to get than a search warrant for a criminal's house or business and requires good evidence BEFORE getting. That's why this story is so disturbing.

[Cow Poke]

In my experience, a guy who keeps cash in a safe deposit box for nefarious reasons would not want the scrutiny and actual record of comings and goings.

Sure, the bank doesn't watch you open the box - they have a key and you have a key, and they let you in the room by yourself.
There is, however, a log book that you have to sign in and out, providing photo ID - and that creates pretty much an iron-clad paper trail.

An honest person wouldn't worry about that record - a criminal probably would.

[seanD]

Except they actually do use SD boxes for the reasons I mentioned.

And it takes a warrant to search an SD box. Which is usually harder to get than a search warrant for a criminal's house or business and requires good evidence BEFORE getting. That's why this story is so disturbing.

Where is your proof criminals use safety deposit boxes? Have you interviewed criminals?

You seem schizoid in your argument. I can't tell if you're arguing for or against SD seizures. On one hand you seem to be arguing in favor of it. The fact this story is indeed disturbing is just more support against SD box seizures.

[Cow Poke]

Where is your proof criminals use safety deposit boxes? Have you interviewed criminals?

You seem schizoid in your argument. I can't tell if you're arguing for or against SD seizures. On one hand you seem to be arguing in favor of it. The fact this story is indeed disturbing is just more support against SD box seizures.

Back to the facts --- when a "specific use warrant" is issued, it is based on what is being sought.

I have served a number of warrants where we found far more than we expected to find, but it wasn't listed in the warrant, so only those things we enumerated could be seized.

We have learned to broaden our requests for warrants for drugs to "include firearms, large amounts of cash, and peripheral material and equipment known to accompany drug dealers".

In one case, we found a large cache of child pornography, but that wasn't in the warrant, so we couldn't use that to charge the guy with child porn, though we sure did want to.

[Sparko]

In my experience, a guy who keeps cash in a safe deposit box for nefarious reasons would not want the scrutiny and actual record of comings and goings.

Sure, the bank doesn't watch you open the box - they have a key and you have a key, and they let you in the room by yourself.
There is, however, a log book that you have to sign in and out, providing photo ID - and that creates pretty much an iron-clad paper trail.

An honest person wouldn't worry about that record - a criminal probably would.

1. Not if they don't access it that often.
2. There are a lot of private safe deposit companies out there that don't make you log in and out and show IDs.

In fact the one in the story was such a one, and apparently according to the story it was suspected of being involved in the scheme. Basically providing a convenient location for criminals to store their goods and do money laundering. Which is probably how the FBI got the warrant.

The company is basically shut down right now and they have seized everything.

https://usprivatevaults.com/
ATTENTION TO ALL BOX HOLDERS AND CUSTOMERS OF US PRIVATE VAULTS, INC:

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT LEGAL COUNSEL JUST RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING NOTICE OF FORFEITURE. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING TO FORFEIT AND ASSUME OWNERSHIP OF THE CONTENTS OF ALL PRIVATELY HELD VAULTS ON THE PREMISES OF U.S. PRIVATE VAULTS, WHICH IS NOW CLOSED.

VAULT HOLDERS WISHING TO CLAIM THEIR PROPERTY ARE HEREBY ADVISED TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH ON THE GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF FORFEITURE. YOU MUST FILE A WRITTEN CLAIM TO CONTEST THE FORFEITURE OF YOUR PROPERTY BY JUNE 24, 2021 AT 11:59 P.M.

Department of Justice Seizure Notice (5/20/2021)

FBI Claim Form

UPDATE 6/11/2021: USPV's attorney has submitted the following forfeiture claim to the FBI

[Cow Poke]

1. Not if they don't access it that often.
2. There are a lot of private safe deposit companies out there that don't make you log in and out and show IDs.

They shoulda just buried it in a box near a tree like in Shawshank Redemption.

shawshank.jpg

[Sparko]

They shoulda just buried it in a box near a tree like in Shawshank Redemption.

shawshank.jpg

Yeah or in barrels in the ground like Pablo Escobar.

[seanD]

More testament to how corrupt the FBI really is: they secured a warrant claiming that certain safety deposit boxes were being use to stash illegal goods. The warrant was granted on the condition that only contents that were known to be illegal could be seized. So the FBI proceeded to indiscriminately confiscate over $80 million in cash, jewelry, and rare coins claiming that they smelled vaguely of marijuana and that the burden was on the owners to prove the goods were legal. They are now fighting it out in court for violating the Fourth Amendment.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...egal-property/

FBI says fortune seized in Beverly Hills raid was criminals’ loot. Owners say: Where’s the proof?

After the FBI seized Joseph Ruiz’s life savings during a raid on a safe deposit box business in Beverly Hills, the unemployed chef went to court to retrieve his $57,000. A judge ordered the government to tell Ruiz why it was trying to confiscate the money.

It came from drug trafficking, an FBI agent responded in court papers.

Ruiz’s income was too low for him to have that much money, and his side business selling bongs made from liquor bottles suggested he was an unlicensed pot dealer, the agent wrote. The FBI also said a dog had smelled unspecified drugs on Ruiz’s cash.

The FBI was wrong. When Ruiz produced records showing the source of his money was legitimate, the government dropped its false accusation and returned his money.

Ruiz is one of roughly 800 people whose money and valuables the FBI seized from safe deposit boxes they rented at the U.S. Private Vaults store in a strip mall on Olympic Boulevard.

Federal agents had suspected for years that criminals were stashing loot there, and they assert that’s exactly what they found. The government is trying to confiscate $86 million in cash and a stockpile of jewelry, rare coins and precious metals taken from about half of the boxes.

But six months after the raid, the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles have produced no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the vast majority of box holders whose belongings the government is trying to keep.

About 300 of the box holders are contesting the attempted confiscation. Ruiz and 65 others have filed court claims saying the dragnet forfeiture operation is unconstitutional.

“It was a complete violation of my privacy,” Ruiz said. “They tried to discredit my character.”

Prosecutors, so far, have outlined past criminal convictions or pending charges against 11 box holders to justify the forfeitures. But in several other cases, court records show, the government’s rationale for claiming that the money and property it seized was tied to crime is no stronger than it was against Ruiz.

[Cow Poke]

I remember a movie where a guy had to fight to get his seized property back, and in the very end, they told him "go down the hall, third door on the left, and they'll give you your property".
He replied, "then what door do I go to to get back my reputation?"

[Mountain Man]

Such as?

Seriously? You can't think of any reason other than criminal intent for keeping cash in a safe deposit box?

The most obvious would be ready access to cash in an emergency. You say someone would be more likely to keep emergency cash at home. Perhaps, but they might also feel it's safer in an offsite high security vault. Or someone might have a small amount of ready cash at home while keeping a larger amount in a more secure location.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah or in barrels in the ground like Pablo Escobar.

I thought that was Walter White.

blogs-the-feed-breaking-bad-money-barrels.jpg

[Gondwanaland]

Well the cash is suspicious. Why keep cash in a SD box rather than in a bank account? But the rest (jewelry and rare coins, etc.) sounds like overreach. But even with the cash, the burden should be on the FBI to give evidence that it was proceeds from an illegal business.

Look at the last decade and a half of bank shennanigans (esp. Wells Fargo)and then ask why someone might want to go with a SD box instead of a bank account.....

[Gondwanaland]

I can think of any number of legitimate reasons for keeping cash in a safe deposit box. There's nothing inherently suspicious about it.

Yup. Heck, just ask anyone whose grandparents or great-grandparents went through the Great Depression how many of them kept a good chunk of money outside of banks (if they used banks at all), under their beds, in lockboxes/ammo boxes, personal safes, etc., and you'll probably at least get a large minority (if not a majority)who will say their grand/great-grand parents did that.

[Sparko]

I thought that was Walter White.

blogs-the-feed-breaking-bad-money-barrels.jpg

Escobar did it first.

A farmer found $600M of it a few years ago.

[seanD]

More testament to how corrupt the FBI really is: they secured a warrant claiming that certain safety deposit boxes were being use to stash illegal goods. The warrant was granted on the condition that only contents that were known to be illegal could be seized. So the FBI proceeded to indiscriminately confiscate over $80 million in cash, jewelry, and rare coins claiming that they smelled vaguely of marijuana and that the burden was on the owners to prove the goods were legal. They are now fighting it out in court for violating the Fourth Amendment.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...egal-property/

Remember this story? An update:

FBI misled judge who signed warrant for Beverly Hills seizure of $86 million in cash

Eighteen months later, newly unsealed court documents show that the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles got their warrant for that raid by misleading the judge who approved it.

They omitted from their warrant request a central part of the FBI’s plan: Permanent confiscation of everything inside every box containing at least $5,000 in cash or goods, a senior FBI agent recently testified.

The FBI’s justification for the dragnet forfeiture was its presumption that hundreds of unknown box holders were all storing assets somehow tied to unknown crimes, court records show.

It took five days for scores of agents to fill their evidence bags with the bounty: More than $86 million in cash and a bonanza of gold, silver, rare coins, gem-studded jewelry and enough Rolex and Cartier watches to stock a boutique.

The U.S. attorney’s office has tried to block public disclosure of court papers that laid bare the government’s deception, but a judge rejected its request to keep them under seal.

The failure to disclose the confiscation plan in the warrant request came to light in FBI documents and depositions of agents in a class-action lawsuit by box holders who say the raid violated their rights.

The court filings also show that federal agents defied restrictions that U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim set in the warrant by searching through box holders’ belongings for evidence of crimes.

“The government did not know what was in those boxes, who owned them, or what, if anything, those people had done,” Robert Frommer, a lawyer who represents nearly 400 box holders in the class-action case, wrote in court papers.

“That’s why the warrant application did not even attempt to argue there was probable cause to seize and forfeit box renters’ property.”

FBI bootlickers wrong again.