Tim Worstall

It’s Not Your Money You Know

Don’t be silly, you don’t really think that those pieces of paper with the Queen’s head on them actually belong to you do you?

"Interestingly, the notice on HMRC’s website also says they have the
right to seize any sum exceeding £1,000 if they suspect it is the
proceeds of crime.
…

A spokesman for HMRC said the £1,000 limit was introduced under the Proceeds of Crime Act five years ago.

"People who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear," he said.

So there you are, off for a day at the races. £1,500 or so on you, a great day out to look forward to. But you see, it’s not actually your money any more. Any policeman can stop you and confiscate that cash and then you have to prove that it’s your own. Perhaps you’ll get it sorted out, perhaps you won’t. But certainly your day out has been ruined. Or even, you went with £500 and came back with £2,000?

Or, say, you have a successful evening at a casino. Not too tough (yes, I know that losses are more likely) to walk out with £5 k or so. Mr. Plod stops you and takes the money. In this case you wouldn’t find it too tough to show where it came from, just ask the casino to speak up for you.

Ah, but, you’re not thinking in the way that the authorities do. This actually happened in the US, man comes out of casino after a winning streak and buys a first class air ticket for cash. He’d never flown first class so why not have a treat when luck is with you?

He’s searched and his $ 13,000 in cash winnings are confiscated. It takes him several appeals through the courts (I forget how far, might even have been to the Supremes) to get his money back.

At one point the claim becomes that as the banknotes have cocaine on them they must be the  proceeds of drug crime. But, as we know, almost all banknotes have cocaine on them, spread via the automatic counting machines and ATMs.

As for the usage of this new power: the various bodies set up to confiscate criminal monies actually have targets which they have to meet, cash volumes to hit. What do you think is going to happen in order to meet them? If those drug couriers prove a little difficult to track down, who would want to be the antiques dealer visting a fair? The holder of the drinks pot on a stag weekend even? The adulterer making sure there’s no paper trail of that weekend in London? (A one bedroom suite at Claridges is £1890.00 a night).

I predict (not a very tough prediction this) random searches at race meetings within a decade. Won’t that be lovely?

But don’t worry, be happy. For as is obvious, no one really thinks that it’s your money anyway. It might reside in your wallet but it really only does so as long as the State says it might.

In

10 responses

  1. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    Having read that piece, and being a bit of a spod, I went and read the Act to get my reportage first-hand.
    While not wishing to disagree with the tone of your reaction, for indeed this is exactly the mindset of New Labour (as demonstrated on the Today programme this morning where apparently owning a company privately is not to be allowed without “transparency”), I have to point out that the scenario above would be unlawful.
    Firstly, the money can only be seized on reasonable suspicion: on your way back home from the casino with cash would not be reasonable suspicion, and you could sue for damages from unlawful seizure.
    Secondly, you don’t have to prove the money was legally obtained: the police or Customs have to apply to a magistrate to continue “detaining” the money, and the magistrate won’t allow this without reasonable suspicion, and furthermore in the absence of criminal proceedings the money must be returned (with interest) within certain time limits.
    Finally, only a court can confiscate the money permanently, and it has to be “satisfied” that the money is the proceeds of crime (I don’t know what the burden of proof at this level is, but if you read Bystander’s blog, you’ll be content that the judicial system is not going to roll over).
    You are completely right, though, that you could be considerably inconvenienced by having your cash taken from you. Just as we are today if arrested, or stopped by the police at a road block. As Tony Blair says, it’s a balance of competing interests. By “balance” you and I mean “minimum inconvenience to the innocent citizen without paralyzing the police”, and Tony Blair means “shut up whining, there is a war on you know”.

    Reply
  2. MarkS Avatar
    MarkS

    Nothing to do with clamping down on builders doing jobs for cash, then?

    Reply
  3. The Remittance Man Avatar
    The Remittance Man

    Well I used this argument over at Niel’s blog when he was enthusing about this some time ago:
    Man driving scruffy pickup through an industrial area at three in the morning. Plod stops him and sees he is unshaven, filthy and stinks of drink. Plod searches the pickup and discovers a large, locked metal cash box.
    “What’s this?” asks Plod.
    Loke a fool the man answers: “It’s a cash box containing 20,000 quid. I work for a charity and it’s the takings from an event we’ve just held”.
    “Really?” says Plod incredulously. “You don’t look like any charity worker I’ve ever seen. I think you are Mr Big and I am confiscating this dosh. Come along with me sir.”
    Protestations of innocence and offers to call other charity workers for confirmatin are met with: “I’m sure the Inspector can sort it all out on monday morning, sir.”
    The funny thing is, six months ago I was that man. I was driving through the local industrial area in a clapped out bakkieat three in the morning. I was filthy, stinking to high heaven with booze and had 20,000 quid in a cash box. I’d just spent the previous 20 hours shifts serving booze to the locals at a local charity festival and the cash was on it’s way to the night safe.
    Fortunately I live in South Africa, not Mr Blair’s Britain, so I only had to worry about potential thieves from the private sector.

    Reply
  4. Chris P Avatar
    Chris P

    Considering the way in which New Labour creates laws which then ‘creep’ into a morphed attack on civil liberities this sounds entirely likely. Who can forget the “arrest” of an elderly man at the Labour Party conference under ‘terrorism’ laws? Worse: money is anonymous, which runs clean contrary to the surveillance society we live in.

    Reply
  5. sortapundit Avatar
    sortapundit

    Firstly, the money can only be seized on reasonable suspicion: on your way back home from the casino with cash would not be reasonable suspicion, and you could sue for damages from unlawful seizure.
    I was randomly pulled over a couple of months ago while on a random late night test drive through the Peak District in a BMW I’d just bought. While I’d committed no crime and was under the influence of nothing but a swig of Diet Coke the officer noted that a loose piece of trim on one of the doors would be justification for a vehicle search under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Fortunately he was a nice enough guy, and sent me on my way.
    However, had the officer performed the search and found the grand and a half in my pocket I’m certain it would have been confiscated – scruffy looking unshaven guy carrying a wad of notes and driving a Beemer in the early hours with no destination or reason for being out sounds like reasonable suspicion to me.
    Furthermore, since I’m a freelance writer every penny I earn comes through online banking services based in places like the Dutch Antilles. If asked I probably couldn’t identify the source of much of my income, and my work doesn’t produce any tangible goods other than a few words on a page.
    While I’m sure I’d get my money back eventually the odds are I’d be out of pocket for much more than a couple of days. The argument here is that, while ‘reasonable suspicion’ can be understood as justification for a police officer to stop a member of the public and ask their business, it isn’t an argument to confiscate their private property, even temporarily.

    Reply
  6. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    “The argument here is that, while ‘reasonable suspicion’ can be understood as justification for a police officer to stop a member of the public and ask their business,”
    Since the mood seems to be shifting to “no reason” to stop and question, then “some small reason” to confiscate property is entirely in keeping with the same mood.
    I’m not defending the law, just pointing out that the potentially dire situations described are probably unlawful. I don’t for a second doubt that New Labour ministers think the law is too soft and would rather take the courts out of the loop and leave the matter of leaving large quantities of untraceable confiscated cash in the hands of a police officer.

    Reply
  7. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    “Worse: money is anonymous”
    It won’t be when ID cards are bedded in. You can see the narrative. It starts with a Hazel Blears type, with a soft voice, tilted head, pursed lips, angry flashing eyes:
    “We need to stop binge drinking related violence, so you must swipe your ID card when buying drinks in pubs so that those convicted of a drink-related violent act are banned from pubs”
    Presently:
    “It’s inconsistent to not show your ID card in the supermarket when buying alcohol. These thugs are getting their alcohol from shops and drinking in public.”
    After a few thousand DMWUs on the “hordes” arriving in Blighty we get pocked-face chubby Scot with angry snarl in front of the cameras:
    “In order to cut down on illegal immigration we need to make sure there is no place these people can hide. Already the supermarkets have the mechanisms to check ID for alcohol purchasing. I am now introducing new rules to require ID cards to be shown on all purchases. This will not inconvenience the ordinary citizen, who already uses his Oyster and Tesco Club Cards when shopping. Only those who have something to hide will have anything to fear by this measure.”
    Presently, Gillian McKeith looky-likey minister comes on telly to tell us that absent fathers will lose their alcohol “privileges” by not paying child maintenance at the level set by the family’s Outreach Coordinator.
    Who needs cash to be anonymous when you can’t buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast?

    Reply
  8. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “Fortunately I live in South Africa, not Mr Blair’s Britain, so I only had to worry about potential thieves from the private sector.”
    But in South Africa, aren’t thieves a little more….um….enthusiastic about relieving you of your goods than even Blair’s Finest..?
    I’m thinking of the video of the under-car flamethrower anti-jacking device 😉

    Reply
  9. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “…while on a random late night test drive through the Peak District ..”
    There’s been a lot of drive-bys & turf wars in the Lakes, lately, I guess. Pity they aren’t so diligent in Streatham High Street..

    Reply
  10. Gary Marshall Avatar
    Gary Marshall

    Of course, you can tell something’s going to be crap when the nothing to hide, nothing to fear thing gets trotted out again.
    Reasonable suspicion is a wonderful thing. I’ve had my car searched because of reasonable suspicion that I was a burglar or carrying a knife (roadblock stopping *every single car*); I’ve been hemmed in and scared shitless by unmarked police cars and had a friend thrown against a wall before being searched and his possessions thrown on the street (reasonable suspicion he was a burglar, because he’d been seen standing in the street with a black holdall for the 2 minutes before I got there and picked him up); I’ve been pulled over and watched a friend get a *mouth search* because the cops had reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer and that he was swallowing the evidence… etc etc etc.
    Reasonable suspicion only works if everybody involved in deciding what is and isn’t suspicious is reasonable. Which, in my limited experience, they aren’t.
    Kay Tie, you’ve made me even more depressed than I was already.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading