AF62 wrote: 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?
Thanks to Wasron,jfgw,Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly, for Donating to support the site
AF62 wrote: 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.
Lootman wrote:AF62 wrote: 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 wrote:Lootman wrote:AF62 wrote: 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
Lootman wrote:melonfool wrote:Lootman wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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.
AF62 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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.
AF62 wrote:You could just use Paym - https://paym.co.uk/ - Most of the UK banks support it.
gryffron wrote:Fastpay from your internet banking direct to theirs, instantly.
AF62 wrote:swill453 wrote:AF62 wrote: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?
Lootman wrote:AF62 wrote:swill453 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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.
Return to “Bank Accounts Savings & ISAs”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests