Money can't buy everything, it's true.

December 19, 2008 6:55 AM

Is there a legal limit to the amount of cash money a US citizen can keep on their person, in their home, or in a safe deposit box?

It's a hypothetical -- I'm sure I'm nowhere near that limit if there is one, but in conversation with a Swiss friend, he mentioned that he thought there was a limit in his country, due to money-laundering laws. I just thought it prudent to have a little reserve, due to these insanely uncertain times, and having to endure a run on my bank does not sound like fun, should one come to pass. I've done a couple of cursory Google searches, and maybe my Google-Fu is just off, but I find nothing. This is mostly out of curiosity, as I'm a wage-slave with no hopes of ever filing up that mason jar in the back yard with Bens.

posted by Devils Rancher to law & government (30 comments total)

no, but don't get charged with a drug related crime!
posted by evilelvis at 7:00 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]

With no links to back me up I say no, but there are limits on how much cash you can carry across an international border.
posted by fixedgear at 7:02 AM on December 19, 2008

Seconding evilelvis. You can keep as much cash on hand as you like, but such charges invariably result in even moderately large amounts being seized as "proceeds of crime".
posted by onshi at 7:06 AM on December 19, 2008

You have to be able to prove that cash is yours by legal means.

From Wikipedia on Asset Forfeiture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

"There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not."
posted by edmo at 7:11 AM on December 19, 2008 [2 favorites]

Interestingly, when they inevitably seize your large amounts of cash but can't prove anything criminal, they'll file a civil case against the money, so there will be something on record as U.S v. $10,000.
posted by electroboy at 7:12 AM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites]

having to endure a run on my bank does not sound like fun, should one come to pass

There have been several bank runs already in the US recently, including the one that killed WaMu. Thanks to FDIC insurance and the federal reserve, no depositors under the FDIC limit (currently $250,000 per depositor per bank) lost money.

Whatever you do, do not keep large amounts of cash in your house. You are much more likely to have your house robbed and lose the money that way than you are likely to suffer any losses by keeping your money in a FDIC insured bank account.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:14 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]

I second burn's advice. FDIC is there for the specific purpose of protecting your money. If the bank does go belly up, you are covered upto 250K. If you don't keep more than that, you should keep your money in a bank. It is much safer.
posted by Brettus at 7:26 AM on December 19, 2008

With no links to back me up I say no, but there are limits on how much cash you can carry across an international border.

There are no limits. You have to report over a certain amount, though. Here in Canada, it's $10 000. This it to combat smuggling and drugs, I think.

Your money is much safer in a FDIC insured (or whatever equivalent your country has). When WuMu failed, the accounts were all transfered to JP Morgan. As far as all the customers were concerted, nothing changed except the logo on their statements. If you leave that money in your house you risk theft, fire, kids, etc. If you still don't trust your bank find one that's well capitalized, like a credit union.
posted by hylaride at 7:32 AM on December 19, 2008

There really isn't a law against carrying a lot of cash. As long as you legally earned it, it is yours to do as you please. If you have it on you it might raise suspicion with the police (face it only drug dealers have 1,000s on them at a time), might make you a target for a robbery, or you might loose it. It is saver just to keep 250k at a time in an FDIC insured bank.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 7:38 AM on December 19, 2008

You have to be able to prove that cash is yours by legal means.

Wouldn't the same be true of funds in a bank account in such a situation as a drug forfeiture case?

1. I'm not a likely candidate for drug-trafficking charges (corrupt cops aside, which I suppose we should all maintain a certain wariness for), having trafficked nothing stronger than 1 lb. of Kenyan Coffee (ground fine for Melita filter) in my life, and 2. Pay stubs vs. deposit slips should do the trick, as far as showing I earned the cash, but didn't bank it, right?

Attention criminals watching this thread 1. My dog will eat you. 2. It's really not enough to bother with. Really.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2008

There have been several bank runs already in the US recently, including the one that killed WaMu. Thanks to FDIC insurance and the federal reserve, no depositors under the FDIC limit (currently $250,000 per depositor per bank) lost money.

Whatever you do, do not keep large amounts of cash in your house. You are much more likely to have your house robbed and lose the money that way than you are likely to suffer any losses by keeping your money in a FDIC insured bank account.

I understand these things. The question really was mostly hypothetical due to general curiosity. A locked, closed bank is probably not a worry like it was in the '20s -- but one can never be too sure, so I was thinking options here, and wanted to know what the legal line was, if any. Thanks!
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:47 AM on December 19, 2008

You have to be able to prove that cash is yours by legal means.

Wouldn't the same be true of funds in a bank account in such a situation as a drug forfeiture case?

Yes, but the money in a bank is more traceable. Did you deposit over $10,000 in cash? That is reported to the IRS. They can also trace who wired you money, and when. It would be harder to trace $10,000 in your freezer.
posted by Monday at 7:50 AM on December 19, 2008

there are limits on how much cash you can carry across an international border

If you carry more than US$10,000 or its equivalent in foreign currency into or out of the United States, you must declare it to U.S. border officials. If you carry more than C$10,000 or equivalent into or out of Canada, you must declare it to Canadian border officials. Note that this means that, at current exchange rates, you must declare US$9,000 if you carry it across the Canadian border, but only on the Canadian side.
posted by oaf at 7:54 AM on December 19, 2008

Here in Canada, it's $10 000. This it to combat smuggling and drugs, I think.

$10,000.00 in & out of the bank is the trip-wire for the IRS -- years back, in the early 80's, I had a GF whose crazy dad (long dead, now) moved to Mexico. He transferred all his money to a bank in Austin, and she dutifully went to that bank and withdrew $9,000.00 every day and wired it to him in Guadalajara until the account was empty.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:00 AM on December 19, 2008

I've heard that repeated $9000 withdrawals would probably catch more attention than one significant withdrawal these days -- the government and the banks are well aware that criminals are well aware of the $10K limit. If you appear to be deliberately evading it, it's my understanding that that will get reported, and investigated, too.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:06 AM on December 19, 2008

Just another fun fact - most banks have in place an anti-money laundering watch policy, and that $9K per day would most definitely be caught these days. A lot of banks have a "trip-wire" amount well under the IRS floor, and have automated systems in place to look for patterns of movement that intend to evade.

Answering your question, no, there's no limit.
posted by ersatzkat at 8:10 AM on December 19, 2008

I've heard that repeated $9000 withdrawals would probably catch more attention than one significant withdrawal these days

It's funny you say that (brings back memories) -- this was over 20 years ago -- but most days she would get the same teller, and said teller knew exactly what she was doing (they'd have a friendly chuckle), and at the time, there was absolutely no law against withdrawing $9,000.00 and wiring it to Mexico every day for your entire life. I'm sure that's changed by now, but at the time we were thinking, and laughing, at the arbitrary line in the sand, and how stupidly easy it was to get around it. These days, there's computers, and things.

Sorry, this is getting off-track. I'll stop, now.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:12 AM on December 19, 2008

she dutifully went to that bank and withdrew $9,000.00 every day and wired it to him in Guadalajara until the account was empty

. . . thereby placing him on a watch list on which he resides to this day.

Seconding ersatzkat (great name!). Banks have trip wires well below the $10,000 and also easily spot withdrawal patterns (and deposit patterns) even across accounts and institutions. Much, MUCH better to fill out the form. Millions of those forms get processed every year. Relatively few people trip the "sneaky" wire.
posted by The Bellman at 8:19 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]

On lack of preview -- wow a lot people said that.
posted by The Bellman at 8:20 AM on December 19, 2008

. . . thereby placing him on a watch list on which he resides to this day.

Not to belabor the point, but this was in 1983. He's been dead 10 years, and died in Mexico. The bank, United Bank of Austin, failed some time in the mid-80's. If someone at the Fed wants to go after his corpse somewhere in Jalisco, 25 years later, let them have at it.

Aside -- a single $9,000.00 deposit or withdrawl -- while technically legal, is it still going to get looked at under some sort of new Drug War probable-cause thing? Again UTTERLY hypothetical, based on idle curiosity. and heading towards delete-worthy, I'm guessing.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:03 AM on December 19, 2008

There is no limit to how much cash you can stash. My grandfather kept upwards of $40,000 around the house in various places, which was located over time after my grandparents died. My own parents, don't have that kind of money even in the bank, have a 3,000 lb. time-lock bank safe in their laundry room that my dad was given by a bank that he was working on. It bothers me that they have it, all the more so because nothing of any real value is in it except a few old heirloom service arms to keep them away from the kids. People talk when you have a 64 cubic foot hunk of steel with a dial on it in your house.
posted by mrmojoflying at 9:30 AM on December 19, 2008

There are a huge number of particular forfeiture statues, so take this with a grain of salt, but I believe that all civil forfeiture statutes require the government to establish probable cause for the seizure - either by warrant, procedural steps established by statute, or in court after the fact (so long as the seizure occurred incident to a lawful search or arrest). This is generally pretty easy, although the 11th Circuit, for example, has upped the bar a bit on federal drug-related seizures.

You have to be able to prove that cash is yours by legal means.

Wouldn't the same be true of funds in a bank account in such a situation as a drug forfeiture case?

The same would be true in any case that allowed seizure. It doesn't even have to be a drug case - in 1970, there was a House debate which discussed DC cops seizing four bucks from a guy. But having a lot of money in the bank is just less suspicious than having it in a pile under your floor boards.

1. I'm not a likely candidate for drug-trafficking charges (corrupt cops aside, which I suppose we should all maintain a certain wariness for), having trafficked nothing stronger than 1 lb. of Kenyan Coffee (ground fine for Melita filter) in my life. . .

Yeah, here's the thing about that. If you're not on anybody's radar as a criminal (or regulatory violator, I guess), then there's probably not a ton of likelihood that you'd run into a problem. That said, lawful searches don't take much. Cops run through your house in pursuit of a suspect, and see you counting a suspiciously large stack of cash - that's a lawful search. If you don't tell them where you got it, I think you'd see that cash disappear into an evidence bag. You're speeding, a State trooper pulls you over, and asks to look in the trunk. You let them, and there's the big pile of cash you were going to give to your niece for a down payment on a house, and there you are - that's a lawful search, and they can grab it.

2. Pay stubs vs. deposit slips should do the trick, as far as showing I earned the cash, but didn't bank it, right?

Not all statutes provide for an innocent owner defense, which might mean you'd be hosed, depending on who grabbed it and what statute authorized the forfeiture. If that down-payment money is confiscated (you speed-demon!), they'll have to cobble together some probable cause under some particular statute (state or otherwise) when you ask for it back, but in the meantime, your niece is going to have to wait on buying a house. You may not have a chance to prove your case.

Oh, wait, here's a way way better example. Tina and John are married. One night, John takes the 11-year old Pontiac they bought a few months ago for $600 and picks up a prostitute. They park on the street, and the Detroit police catch them in the act. Since John didn't have the good sense to get a motel room, he's convicted of gross indecency (a felony). Michigan successfully sues John and Tina to have their car declared a public nuisance and seized. The judge can order the payment of half the proceeds of the cars sales to Tina, the innocent order, but he doesn't. "There's practically nothing left" after costs, he says.

After a series of appeals, the US Supreme Court grants certiorari, and affirms the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling that the absence of an innocent owner defense in the statute doesn't run afoul of any protections offered by the US Constitution.

Really. Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996).

The best forfeiture case name I've seen is United Sates v. One 56-Foot Motor Yacht Named the Tahuna.
posted by averyoldworld at 9:52 AM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites]

or in a safe deposit box?

At the megabank I used to work for, there was a notice in the safe deposit box rental agreement forbidding certain items (including cash) from being stored in safe deposit boxes. Of course, employees were forbidden from knowing the contents of our customers' boxes, so it was a little tricky to enforce.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:57 AM on December 19, 2008

I've read (wish I could dig up the citation) that there have been cases of people stopped on the street with less than $20 on their person who were charged with vagrancy, and more than $50 charged with some crime related to drug dealing. Moral of the story is that you should always be carrying >$20 and <$50. This assumes, of course, that the cop wants to fuck with you.
posted by adamrice at 10:26 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]

Mastercheddaar writes "(face it only drug dealers have 1,000s on them at a time)"

This is very untrue.
posted by Mitheral at 7:48 PM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]

There was a time during The Depression (soon to be The First Depression, to distinguish it from this one!) that it became illegal for individuals to possess gold of any kind. It all had to be turned over to the Feds. Gold is not considered "cash." However, a provision in the Patriot Act allows for widespread seizure of gold from safe deposit boxes, as well as guns. Widespread meaning not just from the box of a terrorist suspect or funding organization -- from anyone. During a National Emergency, of course. Like maybe another Depression?

I'm just sayin' . . .
posted by shifafa at 9:38 PM on December 19, 2008

I live in Vegas. Lots of people here keep tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash or chips on their person, in their home, in their casino lockbox, etc.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:27 PM on December 19, 2008

. . .it became illegal for individuals to possess gold of any kind. It all had to be turned over to the Feds. Gold is not considered "cash."

This is not quite true. Franklin's executive order required "Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates" to be turned over to the government, not "gold of any kind." Neither did the Gold Reserve Act (if you tell me that wikipedia says it and don't read the text of the act, a pox on both your houses. Assuming you have two.). Nobody was required to turn over jewelry or antiques, and there were exceptions for mining, industry, and jewelry makers when it came to bullion.

Gold is not cash now because there is no gold currency. Before it was withdrawn in 1934, gold currency was cash. It's the currency part that matters.

However, a provision in the Patriot Act allows for widespread seizure of gold from safe deposit boxes, as well as guns.

The PATRIOT Act does not mention gold or any precious metals. It does have an anti-laundering provision, section 352, which extends to financial institutions. Apparently, Congress had defined dealers in precious metals as being financial institutions even before the passing of the act. The Treasury Department issued some rules under authority given to it by the PATRIOT Act intended to quash money laundering schemes that involved jewels and precious metals. In the same title, there's a section dealing with foreign corruption as being a money-laundering offense (including arms smuggling), which I suspect gets wrapped up in the minds of people making the claims about gold seizure. Why doesn't anybody ever just take a look at things?

None of which has bearing on the question, but it just seemed silly to let it pass. Oh, but the PATRIOT Act does have a forfeiture provision relating to confiscation of assets of "suspected international terrorists." The statute provides for an innocent owner defense. So, you should be fine with your stacks of cash and pay stubs if somebody thinks you're an international terrorist.
posted by averyoldworld at 11:36 AM on December 20, 2008

There is no legal limit to the amount of cash you can have. But what you DO with it is subject to both laws and regulations. If you cross the border, either in or out with more than $10,000 without properly declaring it, they can and will take it away from you, and you will almost certainly lose it forever. If you bank it (either in or out) of more than $10,000 or ANY amount the teller thinks is "suspicious", they must report it. If you engage in cash transactions over $10,000 with a business, the business has to report it. If you try to get around any trip-wires of $10,000 or "suspicious", you are probably guilty of a crime. Reporting it in and of itself is not a big deal, but you better be sure you are doing it all legally, and that you are paying all your state and federal taxes properly.

Basically, anyone dealing with more than a few thousand dollars in cash is viewed as suspicious by far too many people. And there are enough laws and regulations to be aware of and wary of, that I would not recommend it unless you are very aware of the laws, regulations, and mores in our "free" country.
posted by 925 at 11:55 PM on December 20, 2008

On a tangentially related note, it occurred to me that the amount of cash I had on hand varied from $150 to zero over the course of a week between ATM visits.
The talk of possible bank runs caused me to squirrel an extra week's cash aside, just in case there is some hold-up to accessing an account for a few days.
It would be annoying to not be able to eat just because your account was on hold for a few days just before you were due to hit the ATM.
Fortunately, I notice the banks that have been in trouble have not resulted in interrupted services, but I will happily forfeit the 12 cents a week in forgone interest as insurance it won't leave me high and dry.
posted by bystander at 2:50 AM on December 21, 2008