Safer than cash?

[Lootman]

However I wonder if there will become a point where those who have cash are looked in with suspicion as to why they are using it.

So would carrying cash constitute probable cause for a police search on your world?

[melonfool]

However I wonder if there will become a point where those who have cash are looked in with suspicion as to why they are using it.

So would carrying cash constitute probable cause for a police search on your world?

What does 'probable cause' mean? In England.

Mel

[Lootman]

However I wonder if there will become a point where those who have cash are looked in with suspicion as to why they are using it.

So would carrying cash constitute probable cause for a police search on your world?

What does 'probable cause' mean?l

For those who do not watch a lot of crime shows on TV, it is equivalent to "reasonable suspicion".

Interestingly people have been arrested in the US for nothing more than carrying a large amount of cash. Police there regard that as indicative of being a drug dealer. I'd like to think that a UK jury would not make such an inferential leap, absent corroborating evidence. But maybe not if many think like AF62.

[AF62]

So would carrying cash constitute probable cause for a police search on your world?

What does 'probable cause' mean?l

For those who do not watch a lot of crime shows on TV, it is equivalent to "reasonable suspicion".

Interestingly people have been arrested in the US for nothing more than carrying a large amount of cash. Police there regard that as indicative of being a drug dealer. I'd like to think that a UK jury would not make such an inferential leap, absent corroborating evidence. But maybe not if many think like AF62.

The government already thinks this way.

Carry more than €10,000 out of the country in cash without declaring it and you may not see it again - https://www.gov.uk/bringing-cash-into-uk

Carry £1,000 in the UK without a good explanation where it came from or what it is for and you may not see it again - https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... h-seizure/

[swill453]

Carry £1,000 in the UK without a good explanation where it came from or what it is for and you may not see it again - https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... h-seizure/

Your sentence does not correctly summarise the page you're linking to.

Scott.

[AF62]

Carry £1,000 in the UK without a good explanation where it came from or what it is for and you may not see it again - https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... h-seizure/

Your sentence does not correctly summarise the page you're linking to.

I think it provides a reasonable summary that a police officer who's presence is lawful finds someone with £1,000 or more may seize the cash if they have reasonable grounds to suggest that the cash is recoverable property (obtained by unlawful conduct) or is intended for use by any person in unlawful conduct.

Do you not think failing to have a good explanation where it came from or what it is for is not likely to be reasonable grounds?

[swill453]

Do you not think failing to have a good explanation where it came from or what it is for is not likely to be reasonable grounds?

The police officer isn't even entitled to ask for an explanation unless there are objective grounds for suspicion, based on facts, information, and/or intelligence.

Scott.

[AF62]

Do you not think failing to have a good explanation where it came from or what it is for is not likely to be reasonable grounds?

The police officer isn't even entitled to ask for an explanation unless there are objective grounds for suspicion, based on facts, information, and/or intelligence.

And you don't think a police office would be able to find such grounds to ask if they wanted to?

[Slarti]

You could just use Paym - https://paym.co.uk/ - Most of the UK banks support it.

Which brings us back to having to have a smart phone and a banking app.

No thanks to the banking app.

Slarti

[Slarti]

Fastpay from your internet banking direct to theirs, instantly.

Well, that does depend on which bank you use. Certainly Tesco do not receive transfers from my First Direct or HSBC accounts instantly. Can take a couple of hours.

I'm sure that there are others that are just as bad.

Slarti

[Lootman]

Do you not think failing to have a good explanation where it came from or what it is for is not likely to be reasonable grounds?

The police officer isn't even entitled to ask for an explanation unless there are objective grounds for suspicion, based on facts, information, and/or intelligence.

And you don't think a police office would be able to find such grounds to ask if they wanted to?

If you mean would the cop be able to dream up some pretext for abusing his power, position and authority? Then yes.

Would that be legal and proper? No. Carrying a certain amount of cash on your person is not against the law, and you may refuse to state why you have it. Unless the cop has other legitimate reasons to suspect a crime then there is nothing that cop can do, legally. But yes, he might abuse his power although, if he was that intent on messing with you, he could do that even if you did not have any cash. Ask people arrested for walking while black.

[AF62]

The police officer isn't even entitled to ask for an explanation unless there are objective grounds for suspicion, based on facts, information, and/or intelligence.

And you don't think a police office would be able to find such grounds to ask if they wanted to?

If you mean would the cop be able to dream up some pretext for abusing his power, position and authority? Then yes.

Would that be legal and proper? No. Carrying a certain amount of cash on your person is not against the law, and you may refuse to state why you have it. Unless the cop has other legitimate reasons to suspect a crime then there is nothing that cop can do, legally. But yes, he might abuse his power although, if he was that intent on messing with you, he could do that even if you did not have any cash. Ask people arrested for walking while black.

An abuse of power when a police officer has discovered you are carrying thousands in cash and you refuse to give any explanation.

Sorry I can't see you winning with that one.

[Lootman]

An abuse of power when a police officer has discovered you are carrying thousands in cash and you refuse to give any explanation. Sorry I can't see you winning with that one.

Others have already pointed out where that logic is wrong. The law requires BOTH that you are carry a large amount of cash AND that there is other evidence of a crime having being committed.

So if I am in a car identified as a getaway car from a bank robbery AND I have 10K in cash on me in a bag marked "Barclays Bank" then I am in the trouble you suggest. Likewise if I have that cash and a suitcase full of heroin. In those cases the individual will no doubt lose the cash, assuming that they are convicted of the crime that led to them having it in the first place.

But the cash alone with no prima facie evidence of a crime is insufficient, according to the very citation you gave. The cash alone is not evidence of a crime. And nobody is ever under a legal obligation to answer questions from a cop.

You are describing the world as you would perversely like it to be, not as it is.

[AF62]

An abuse of power when a police officer has discovered you are carrying thousands in cash and you refuse to give any explanation. Sorry I can't see you winning with that one.

Others have already pointed out where that logic is wrong. The law requires BOTH that you are carry a large amount of cash AND that there is other evidence of a crime having being committed.

So if I am in a car identified as a getaway car from a bank robbery AND I have 10K in cash on me in a bag marked "Barclays Bank" then I am in the trouble you suggest. Likewise if I have that cash and a suitcase full of heroin. In those cases the individual will no doubt lose the cash, assuming that they are convicted of the crime that led to them having it in the first place.

But the cash alone with no prima facie evidence of a crime is insufficient, according to the very citation you gave. The cash alone is not evidence of a crime. And nobody is ever under a legal obligation to answer questions from a cop.

You are describing the world as you would perversely like it to be, not as it is.

So the police stop a car for a traffic offence and see a carrier bag overflowing with £50 notes.

Do you really think they will pat the driver on the head and wish them a good journey when the driver refuses to answer any questions about the cash? Do you think that would be responsible of them?

[Lootman]

So the police stop a car for a traffic offence and see a carrier bag overflowing with £50 notes.

Do you really think they will pat the driver on the head and wish them a good journey when the driver refuses to answer any questions about the cash? Do you think that would be responsible of them?

Again, you confuse what might happen and what is legal. Cops may do all kinds of things in an incident like that. But the legal question is whether someone in that situation will be successfully prosecuted and forfeit the cash.

He may get a traffic ticket but the burden of proof is on the cops and prosecution to prove that the cash was ill-gotten. The driver does not have to help by saying anything at all. So it all hinges on other evidence being produced. Absent that, possession of the cash and a failure to answer questions about it does not secure either a conviction nor a forfeit.

It may sound odd to you but mere possession of wealth is not a crime.

[AF62]

So the police stop a car for a traffic offence and see a carrier bag overflowing with £50 notes.

Do you really think they will pat the driver on the head and wish them a good journey when the driver refuses to answer any questions about the cash? Do you think that would be responsible of them?

Again, you confuse what might happen and what is legal. Cops may do all kinds of things in an incident like that. But the legal question is whether someone in that situation will be successfully prosecuted and forfeit the cash.

He may get a traffic ticket but the burden of proof is on the cops and prosecution to prove that the cash was ill-gotten. The driver does not have to help by saying anything at all. So it all hinges on other evidence being produced. Absent that, possession of the cash and a failure to answer questions about it does not secure either a conviction nor a forfeit.

It may sound odd to you but mere possession of wealth is not a crime.

So with the driver refusing to answer any questions, do you think the police would pat the driver on the head and let them go on their way with a bag of cash or have grounds to seize it?

[Lootman]

So with the driver refusing to answer any questions, do you think the police would pat the driver on the head and let them go on their way with a bag of cash or have grounds to seize it?

Different cops will do all kinds of things. The issue is not what cops might do, but rather what the law actually says and allows. And the law says neither that you have to answer questions nor that possessing cash is a crime in itself.

I doubt that you would want to live in a country where silence was a crime.

[AF62]

So with the driver refusing to answer any questions, do you think the police would pat the driver on the head and let them go on their way with a bag of cash or have grounds to seize it?

Different cops will do all kinds of things. The issue is not what cops might do, but rather what the law actually says and allows. And the law says neither that you have to answer questions nor that possessing cash is a crime in itself.

I doubt that you would want to live in a country where silence was a crime.

So I assume that you would prefer to see the police let them disappear with their bag of cash they refuse to answer any questions about. Fortunately it seems the law makers in the UK do not have that same view.

[Lootman]

So I assume that you would prefer to see the police let them disappear with their bag of cash they refuse to answer any questions about. Fortunately it seems the law makers in the UK do not have that same view.

It has already been pointed out to you by me and others what the law says and what it does not say. It does not make the mere possession of cash a crime. What the cops typically do is question someone and then release them unless they have or find other evidence. So it might be an inconvenience but not a tragedy.

The rest of what you are saying is really an assault on the right to silence. Suffice to say that all civilised societies have a right to silence, and for very good reasons. It is often reckoned that it is better for 99 guilty people to get away with it than one innocent person be convicted. So our society places the burden of proof firmly on the cops and prosecution, even though that means many perps get away with it. It's the price of civilisation. You do not have to help the case against you by blurting something out that you later regret.

[AF62]

So I assume that you would prefer to see the police let them disappear with their bag of cash they refuse to answer any questions about. Fortunately it seems the law makers in the UK do not have that same view.

It has already been pointed out to you by me and others what the law says and what it does not say. It does not make the mere possession of cash a crime. What the cops typically do is question someone and then release them unless they have or find other evidence. So it might be an inconvenience but not a tragedy.

The rest of what you are saying is really an assault on the right to silence. Suffice to say that all civilised societies have a right to silence, and for very good reasons. It is often reckoned that it is better for 99 guilty people to get away with it than one innocent person be convicted. So our society places the burden of proof firmly on the cops and prosecution, even though that means many perps get away with it. It's the price of civilisation. You do not have to help the case against you by blurting something out that you later regret.

Sorry but there is no way the police would let someone walk away with a bag of cash if they refused to answer any questions. I respectfully suggest you read the link I posted.