Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Billions in Dirty Money Flies Under the Radar at Busiest Airports

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Billions in Dirty Money Flies Under the Radar at Busiest Airports

#91

Post by lsllc »

lettergram wrote: post #27
hiddencost wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boston is not a gun friendly town. You got lucky.

Yeah, I generally agree. That said, there’s a couple things: 1. You’re technically allowed to travel through anywhere with any firearms in the US (I only had a magazine, not a firearm) legally. That includes planes, but you have to check the bags. That said, they can still arrest you and not follow the law. 2. I carry a conceal carry permit with reciprocity with most states for this very reason. I actually showed it…

You got really lucky! In MA possession of ammunition without a (MA issued) permit is a crime with up to 2 years in jail.

MA doesn't have ANY reciprocity with other states regarding your CCW and the City of Boston in particular has a ban on any high-capacity (>10 rounds) magazines of ANY sort/age. MA banned hi-capacity mags but only ones made after 1994, pre-ban ones are ok, just not in Boston (and I think a few other towns).

You are right about peaceable journey, but I would not risk any of my liberty or rights on the good nature of a LEO in such a state.

Re: Billions in Dirty Money Flies Under the Radar at Busiest Airports

#92

Post by brokenmachine »

r2_pilot wrote: post #84
pintxo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that you start with agreeing that the meaning is ambiguous, and then follow up with it being trivial to parse. So what is it? Ambiguous or trivial to parse? I don’t think you can have it both ways.

And further, since it is ambiguous, would it be so difficult for us to come together as a nation and, well, reduce the ambiguity? It's not like the Constitution is a suicide pact, we are allowed to make changes.

It's quite literally an amendment.

Re: Billions in Dirty Money Flies Under the Radar at Busiest Airports

#93

Post by pintxo »

brokenmachine wrote: post #92
r2_pilot wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And further, since it is ambiguous, would it be so difficult for us to come together as a nation and, well, reduce the ambiguity? It's not like the Constitution is a suicide pact, we are allowed to make changes.

It's quite literally an amendment.

We can have changes of changes, can't we?

Re: Billions in Dirty Money Flies Under the Radar at Busiest Airports

#94

Post by crazygringo »

fbdab103 wrote: post #63
johnneville wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

despite the separation of duties, at first glance, it would appear worthwhile to me for the customs agencies to buy access to the CT scanners or just the output from the security agencies so they could easily detect the cash maybe there are laws regarding privacy or just bureaucratic challenges that prevent this though

On the gripping hand, traveling with cash should not be a crime. We already surrender so much privacy to the TSA. I would fear that we would be hearing about more "TSA vs $20k in stacks of cash" civil forfeiture cases.

It's not a crime. You just have to declare it.

Of course, this information is going to be interesting to the police. So if they are the proceeds of crime, it will probably help get you caught.

It's not really any different from banks reporting every deposit of $10K or over. The government wants to track all large transfers of money both in bank accounts and across borders, so that it can identify money flows that are not being reported to the IRS and/or are the proceeds of criminal activity.

Re: Billions in Dirty Money Flies Under the Radar at Busiest Airports

#95

Post by crazygringo »

resolutebat wrote: post #26
crazygringo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is in the article: > The machines can be programmed to find cash, but they aren’t because they are operated by airport-security agents, responsible for passenger safety, not customs and immigration officials. As to why the UK government doesn't pass a regulation that airport security is also responsible for detecting large amounts of cash, I have no idea.

In addition, systematic security scans are performed at the departing airport, and it's generally not a crime to export huge amounts of undeclared cash, only to import it.

No, a major part of the article is that the scans are not performed.

And it absolutely is a crime to export huge amounts of undeclared cash. Again, a major part of the article.

Think about it -- if large amounts of undeclared cash are being exported, then they're probably both criminal proceeds and haven't had taxes paid on them. And the government wants to stop both.

It's actually the government on the import side that may be less interested. As in this very article. Governments are less likely to be complaining about money coming in.

Re: Billions in Dirty Money Flies Under the Radar at Busiest Airports

#97

Post by kortilla »

pintxo wrote: post #80
kortilla wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your “clarification” was to post a famously ambiguous sentence. It’s trivial to parse that as the militia being regulated, not the “bearing arms” part. Especially since it’s explicitly stating that the right “shall not be infringed”.

Funny that you start with agreeing that the meaning is ambiguous, and then follow up with it being trivial to parse. So what is it? Ambiguous or trivial to parse? I don’t think you can have it both ways.

It’s trivial to parse it either way without mental gymnastics.
Post reply on HN