Can someone explain the legalese in this filing. If you google fiore Gipson the case filing will come up.

Basically 100k was seized from two poker players luggage at Atlanta airport and the players have been fighting to get it back.

According to Gina fiores Facebook, the process is almost complete after several years of legal wrangling.

I always thought carrying cash in airports was fine as long as u could explain where the cash came from.

Can airport personnel just seize cash at will? I've gone thru airports with over $50k several times but now I'm reconsidering.

If you google forfeiture (or asset forfeiture) you will read all types of horror stories. There is at least one story on 2+2 of a case where a poker players funds were confiscated in Detroit Airport (and he eventually got them back after hiring attorney) on his way to a poker tournament.

The truth is, if you are carrying "large" sums of money, it is possible for any US Law Enforcement Agency to take the money on the "judgement" it is being used for illegal purposes (or something like that, too late for me to hit exact legal terminology). Many areas in the south are famous for making traffic stops and seizing money, calling it drug funds. And getting it back can prove to be a big pain in the butt, and sometimes you can not get it back at all.

So, if at all possible, I would be wiring money to casinos you visit to be on the safe side.

The US has not been the land of the free for a long time.

Viffer - warning to high stakes travelers!!

Also-----------------------------------------

The money was returned long ago. On appeal, the 9th circuit just ruled they can pursue a lawsuit in Nevada court instead of Georgia. The money was initially confiscated as drug money.

If they haven't declared that they are carrying an amount above the standard set by the airport's jurisdiction then they are in breach of the law.

If this was the case, the police should investigate the source of that money and, finding it was legal, give it back to them. I don't understand why they haven't given it back - its not like the penalty for carrying undeclared cash is that significant or anything, usually just a small fine or caution.

Has nothing to do with this. Declaring money is for out of country travel. This is just Law Enforcement taking money using the fact someone carrying large amounts of cash is suspected of being connected to drug money, other illegal enterprises, etc. It is not reported by the major media, but there are tons of stories on the subject.

On this forum there seems to be a lack of honesty about the fact that most folks carrying around 100K in cash are criminals in every sense of the word.

That kind of crap goes on in many countries.

I know cases in some other countries where, for example, a person carries cash in the amount that needs to be declared but without declaring it (sometimes due to mere ignorance of rules), and then they stop him, seize the cash, and even when he can explain the source of the money, they convict him for not having declared the cash and sentence him to a fine AND a confiscation of the entire amount as "proceeds of criminal offence". Now THAT is total bull****

Your wrong, I have done it before many times for business, and there are many reasons for doing so. Drug money is not muled thru airports.

It is merely a means for government to seize assets for their own use to fill budget gaps. The money or other assets are very hard to recover and most of the time the legal fees to recover the asset cost more than the asset itself. Forcing most cases to be dropped, and allowing the government to keep the asset. It is a well documented practice especially in the south.

This is just for exsample. Bail money is ernest money that you will show up to your court date. I bailed my brother in law out of jail 5 months ago for 2k. A 15 year old minor weed infraction that wasnt taken care of. He had moved back to the state and was pulled over for a trafic violation, and taken in. He was supposed to get a court date and when he showed up I would get my money back.

Well the government dropped charges, and guess what? Now that they will not be giving him a court date will I be getting my money back? No. I have to travel 350 miles to the other side of the state and file a legal motion to get my money back.

By "criminals" I did not necessarily mean drug dealers.

You might be the exception that proves the rule.

Please tell me what are the legitimate reasons for doing something as stupid and risky as carrying 100K in cash around.

The example you give has nothing to do with the context of the original post. Your example has to do with bail money and does not relate directly to the issue of carrying around 100K in cash, even if you paid the 2K bail in cash (2K fits in my pocket, or my sock if I use euro bills).

You must not know any sports bettors.

I'm not such a high roller in my retired days. We used to carry whatever in our boots. No more. I keep $5,000 in traveler's checks all the time. If you lose them, as I have, a simple phone call gets them back. They are not suspect. When I go to the airport I wear a black shirt with two pockets and fill the pockets with hundred dollar bills a.k.a. coarse notes. I have pocket money which includes all denominations and I throw it in the basket, letting it spread. They say keep your money." and hand it back. Since they said that I'm not really hiding anything with cash other spots.

What happens at a casino like the Aria if you win $100,000 in a cash game. Will they give you a certified check? Do you fill out a government IRS form? Can you have a partner and two social security numbers to soften the tax load?

In the old days, when they'd arrest us, they would not confiscate any money. I've never lost money in jail. Once Odessa Red had $34,000 on h im when we went to jail, in 1961 money. He was an eccentric friend of Doyle's.

The bail money was used as an example of how hard it is to retrieve an item confiscated by the government. ie even in legal normalities they seize and refuse to release assets.

I work abroad and have carried as much as 250k with me. Most often to pay subcontractors and for petty cash. You will be shocked to learn most of the world does not accept 100k travlers checks.

Yes indeed traveling for vacation does not require 100k in cash. Good point. About a jillion other reasons poker being one do qualify though.

Who are these nefarious cash carrying deviants you are refering to if not nacotics trade?

its 2012 can't these guys just send a bank wire? or is that they didn't wanna report the money they won in puerto rico to the IRS?

As an American have you ever opened a bank account in a foreign country and tried to send money??????

Its very time consuming, frustrating, and often very high fees.

I keep a bunch of declaration forms with me and I declare my cash every time I come into the US. Sometimes its just above $10K and sometimes its a bit more. I have done it coming from the caribbean, Medellin (of all places) and Europe.

I usually get into some conversation about whether they are going to see me on TV and how they don't have a good poker face.

The only issue you might have is if you have a tight connection.

Nobody expects a drug dealer to voluntarily declare that he is carrying a large sum of money so this might in fact be the triple merge way of doing it, not that I am giving anyone any ideas nor suggestions.

Just declare the money, tell them that you are a poker player and go on your way.
Most of you seem to be worried about everything being tied to the IRS computer. Not being American, I can't speak on that.

you should take the word interesting out of your thread title

They probably could have had the casino in Puerto Rico wire a good chunk of that money to one of their banks back home.

In any case, the real story here is how, after the seizure, they provided sufficient documentation to prove that the money was from their gambling professionally, but a DEA officer still tried to maliciously mislead a judge into making the seizure permanent.

According to the complaint,
the DEA’s background searches on Fiore and Gipson
showed them to be “squeaky clean.” Nonetheless, according
to the complaint, Walden and another DEA agent provided a
false probable cause affidavit to the United States Attorney in
the Northern District of Georgia, to assist in bringing a forfeiture
action. Specifically, Fiore and Gipson allege in the complaint
that this probable cause affidavit falsely stated that
Gipson had been uncooperative and had refused to respond to
questions; that Fiore and Gipson had given inconsistent
answers during questioning; and that there was sufficient evidence
for probable cause to forfeit the funds as drug proceeds.
Also, according to the complaint, Walden left out exculpatory
evidence he knew about when he submitted the affidavit: that
Fiore and Gipson had no history of unlawful drug use or
trade; that they had documentation showing them to be advantage
gamblers; that their bags had passed through an agricultural
x-ray and other inspections used for contraband
detection without incident; that Fiore and Gipson had provided
actual receipts for most of the funds that they carried;
and that the $30,000 Gipson was carrying could be traced
directly to a legal source, his winnings at El San Juan Casino


(The casino provided a letter stating that they had won 30k)

The case was referred to Assistant United States Attorney
(AUSA) Dahil Goss. After determining that Walden had in
fact omitted information, with the result that the probable
cause affidavit he provided was misleading, Goss concluded
that there was no probable cause for the forfeiture of the
funds. Goss contacted Fiore and Gipson and offered to return
their funds in exchange for a release, presumably of any possible
legal claims, but they refused to execute one. Nonetheless,
Goss directed the DEA to return Fiore and Gipson’s
money. The $97,000 was returned to them in Las Vegas on
March 1, 2007, nearly seven months after the seizure at the
Atlanta airport and six months after Fiore and Gipson had
provided Walden with the requested documentation showing
the legal source of their funds.

The TSA is just trying "catch criminals". I doubt drug runners are still using airports to run their drugs, atleast not big time drug dealers.

My cousin just flew and he likes surfing so he always has sex wax in his luggage and the TSA takes it every time.

Basically, once the money is confiscated, it is the responsibility of the owner to prove to the government that the money is not part of an illegal criminal activity. This is clearly an assumption of guilt that the courts have been willing to put aside in the "war" on drugs. Part of the problem here is also that the agency that confiscates the money gets a cut from the DEA. This creates an incentive for some organizations to confiscate now and ask questions later. There were some stories in the major media several years ago about a parish in southern Louisiana stopping expensive looking vehicles and confiscating them under the accusation they were being used by drug dealers, even if no drugs were found.

Cops are the rake.

That's not the worst that I've heard from cops around here.

Why doesn't anyone challenge the constitutionality of this law? Seems ludicrous to me that people in this case do not have the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty."

zero

Welcome to 21st century America. You have no rights. You are merely extended the privilege of not being mugged by government officials until such time as you do something that strikes them as unusual.

How about $10k? 30k? Where is the line between criminal and not? Please let us know since you appear to be an expert on the subject.

Innocent until proven guilty is something that we need to fight for, not just shrug our shoulders and say "If you have nothing to hide, why should you care if they search/detain/steal from you".

Bigger Government = fewer rights