***WARNING***

[woodlawn]

>That's why I'm not sure that the true nature of the escort's

>request was to conceal the fact that the source of the money

>was prostitution. I'm more tended to think that the true

>nature of his request was to avoid the risk of being stopped

>at customs, being held for a drugs criminal and put to jail

>for something he didn't do.

 

 

I find your story confusing for two reasons. One is that US Customs does not normally inspect the luggage of persons who are LEAVING the US. The Customs Service is concerned with persons who are ENTERING the US, not those who are leaving. So why would Customs inspect the luggage of the businessman you mentioned as he was leaving the US?

 

Second, there is nothing illegal about carrying cash into or out of the US provided that one discloses the amount of cash one is carrying when asked by Customs to do so -- persons entering the US are normally given a form to fill out asking that they declare any cash they are carrying over a certain amount. Again, such disclosure is normally required upon ENTERING the US, but not upon leaving. And the fact that one is carrying cash does not constitute probable cause to make an arrest for narcotics trafficking -- an arrest would not hold up at a preliminary hearing if there was no other evidence to support it, and the charge would be immediately dismissed.

 

Frankly, that story does not add up.

[woodlawn]

>Hi Woodlawn,

>

>Thank you for responding, but you cannot state that a "story

>does not add up" if you do not know the complete details of

>the story.

 

On the contrary, if you withheld crucial facts in telling the story then that is precisely why the story, as you told it, would not add up.

 

>The news item mentioned a reason why customs was inspecting

>the luggage of this businessman, which was nothing special in

>itself. In addition there were other things that were unusual

>in the eyes of the officials (but which doesn't say he's

>guilty of just anything).

 

>I could have included those details as well, but my post would

>have been way too long, while I found my post already too

>long. In addition, my post would also get off-topic if I had

>included these details.

 

In the first place, you could have included those details without making a longer post than the one you just wrote to tell us that there were details you didn't include.

 

In the second place, the story you told makes absolutely no sense without those details. Again, Customs does not ordinarily inspect the luggage of departing visitors. Even if they do, there would have to be substantial evidence suggesting the man was involved in trafficking quite apart from some cash in order to justify an arrest for trafficking. Nothing you have said explains what was found that could possibly justify such an arrest.

 

>But most of all, you're judging really fast over a situation

>you know nothing about.

 

Telling us the facts is your responsibility, since you are the one who knows them. If you refuse to do that, you've no business to complain that people are evaluating the story without knowing the facts.

[+ glutes]

In defense of Anton, Customs do check people on there way out of the country. Although I have never been searched, on several flights out of the US going to Asia I have seen Customs agents looking for people carrying more than $10,000 US on their person.

[trilingual]

Although Customs rarely checks people LEAVING the U.S., there are other ways for large sums of cash to be discovered. The most common is for cash to be found in a person's luggage, or on his person, as they are passing through airport security checks. People put cash in their carry-on luggage, or carry it on their persons, and it can be spotted on X-rays or in pat-downs. International checked luggage leaving the U.S. is also being X-rayed and opened.

 

As you said, there is nothing illegal about exporting money from the U.S. It IS illegal to export more than $10,000 without declaring it to Customs if you're traveling with cash, but in the case of a wire transfer I believe the bank does the reporting directly.

 

I have a feeling I know who the escort is, because I once transferred money for him. He had a bundle of money in the high four figures, as you described, and wanted to transfer the money for several reasons: he was afraid of loss or theft (it was all his earnings in the U.S. until then) and he had bills to pay back home.

 

There was no problem transferring the money, as it was less than $10,000. I deposited it into my account and then wired the money to the account he specified. He paid me in cash for the wire transfer fee (about $30, as I recall). And that's all. He only asked the one time, and I haven't done it since.

[woodlawn]

Glutes and Tri, I have no problem with anything you have said. It is not routine for USCS to inspect the luggage of outbound travelers, but it does happen. It does NOT happen, however, that someone is arrested for drug trafficking unless there is either a warrant outstanding on him or some evidence that he is involved in trafficking other than the fact that he has a lot of cash. To state that an escort may want to wire his money out of the country because he's afraid of being arrested on a drug charge if he tries to carry it out with him makes no sense -- no such arrest could happen without some evidence other than the cash.

 

I still don't know why Anton's mystery Dutch businessman was arrested, since he won't tell us. The story seems improbable to me for the reasons I've mentioned, and also because the Netherlands does maintain diplomatic facilities in the US for the assistance of its nationals here. I assume that a Dutch businessman arrested on a totally unfounded charge would immediately call the nearest consulate and be advised appropriately by its legal staff.

[trilingual]

As you said, it's not common for U.S. Customs to inspect outbound baggage. It IS common for T.S.A. security agents to open checked and carry-on baggage as part of more stringent security procedures, and they may contact Customs (now also part of the Homeland Security Department) or the police if they find wads of cash.

 

I wish I were as sanguine as you are about the inviolability of one's person and rights in airports and at borders in the U.S., but the reality is that inspectors have virtually unlimited power and often abuse it. Given the anti-drug (and now terrorism) hysteria in the U.S., it has not been uncommon for people to have cash, cars and other property seized by DEA agents or other law enforcement agencies with what appear to be very tenuous connections to drug or terrorism activity, at best. And it's very difficult to get restitution. In effect, you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and in the meantime you find yourself without your house or car, or without access to your money, and facing criminal charges.

[Guest ortrud45]

Woodlawn

 

Last May, after a visit at my sister's place in the US, I boarded

an international flight at Newark/NJ to get back home to Europe and I was asked by a female officer at the gate if I carried more than US $ 10'000 in cash with me (Note: I think I looked pretty pre-

sentable, wearing a suit and tie).

 

After having answered her question (truthfully) with no, she

searched my handluggage and asked me to show her my wallet.

Once she gave me the okay to board I asked her for an explanation:

- For foreigners exists the above mentioned limit of cash when

leaving the States.

- And yes, she confirmed that "money-laundering" was the main

reason for her question.

 

Have all a pleasant evening,

ortrud45

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn

>

> I was asked by a female officer at the gate if I

>carried more than US $ 10'000 in cash with me (Note: I think I

>looked pretty pre-

>sentable, wearing a suit and tie).

 

A 'female officer' of what? The United States Customs Service? Or some other agency?

 

 

>- For foreigners exists the above mentioned limit of cash

>when

>leaving the States.

>- And yes, she confirmed that "money-laundering" was the main

>reason for her question.

 

If you will take the trouble to read the post of mine to which you are responding, you will find that I stated there is nothing illegal about taking currency out of this country provided one discloses the fact on request. My statement seems to be borne out by the experience you had, does it not?

[Guest ortrud45]

Woodlawn

 

1) Yes, if I remember correctly she was an officer of Customs service.

2) To carry along more than US $ 10'000 in cash seems to be illegal for a foreigner when leaving the US.

 

I replied to your post # 28 (last para) just to state that I was searched for money when leaving the States ... so this happens and

is not unusual.

 

Have a pleasant evening,

ortrud45

[+ glutes]

>2) To carry along more than US $ 10'000 in cash seems to be

>illegal for a foreigner when leaving the US.

>

Or anyone, foreigner or national, leaving the country...

[Txpaytoplay]

.....And why are we having this discussion again?......

[Guest zipperzone]

>.....And why are we having this discussion again?......

 

Because it's very late on a Friday night - we're bored to tears and can't come up with an original thought or another topic - so what the hell?

[woodlawn]

RE: Wrong Again

 

>2) To carry along more than US $ 10'000 in cash seems to be

>illegal for a foreigner when leaving the US.

 

You and glutes are both wrong. If you go to the United States Customs Service website, http://www.customs.gov, you will find a document called the "Currency Reporting Flyer" which summarizes the law on this subject. It begins by stating that it is perfectly legal to carry any amount of currency in or out of the United States, provided that amounts over a certain threshhold are disclosed. Which is exactly what I said. Is there some part of that you don't understand?

 

 

>I replied to your post # 28 (last para) just to state that I

>was searched for money when leaving the States ... so this

>happens and

>is not unusual.

 

I submit that your one experience hardly proves that such searches are not unusual. About 30 million people enter the US from other countries each and every year. Can you tell us how many of them are searched for currency?

 

 

>Have a pleasant evening,

 

Thanks, I always do.

[+ glutes]

RE: Wrong Again

 

>I submit that your one experience hardly proves that such searches are not unusual. About 30 million people enter the US from other countries each and every year. Can you tell us how many of them are searched for currency?

 

Woodlawn, we are talking about LEAVING the Motherland with a load of cash...

[Chairmans Pig]

RE: Wrong Again

 

I work for an international airline. The US Customs Service will routinely stop departing passengers and inquire about cash being carried. Sometimes they'll ask us to make an announcement at the boarding gate reminding passengers that it is illegal to carry more than USD10,000 in cash unless it's declared ahead of time.

 

More often than not...when we make this announcement and customs then asks passengers about the funds they're carrying, they find someone that has more than USD10,000 that hasn't been declared.

 

-CP

[woodlawn]

RE: Wrong Again

 

>>I submit that your one experience hardly proves that such

>searches are not unusual. About 30 million people enter the US

>from other countries each and every year. Can you tell us how

>many of them are searched for currency?

 

>Woodlawn, we are talking about LEAVING the Motherland with a

>load of cash...

 

Yeah, I know what were are talking about. A couple of posts ago you were saying that it IS illegal for people to leave the country carrying more than a certain amount. Then I cited a definitive source showing that your statement is wrong, so I guess we're not talking about THAT anymore, right?

 

Those 30 million people I mentioned who enter the US each year from abroad -- were you assuming that all of them simply stay here and never leave? Because your comment above only makes sense if you make that assumption.

 

Try to follow this, kids: There is NOTHING illegal about carrying any amount of currency in or out of the US, as the Customs Service website clearly states. All that is illegal is FAILING TO DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT YOU ARE CARRYING IF IT IS OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT. Is there really anyone who does not understand the difference between those two things? Hard to believe.

[joel304]

Two Words: Western Union

[woodlawn]

>Two Words: Western Union

 

Actually, there are lots of perfectly legal options for wiring money to other countries from the US if you do not have a US bank account. And as any Mexican-American who sends money back to the folks in the old country can tell you, many of the money transfer services available in any major US city are cheaper than Western Union. It pays to shop around.

[+ glutes]

RE: Wrong Again

 

Woodlawn, you better claim your $10,000USD, AND your poppers!

 

Airport to warn about drug possession

 

Mary Ann Bragg

Banner Staff

 

The Provincetown Airport Commission spoke out last week against the many arrests for illegal drug possession at the town airport this summer.

 

Commissioners asked whether the town of Provincetown was being singled out at a federal level, given the board members’ own experiences with less rigorous searches in larger airports. They asked whether federal security agents posted at the local airport were fully trained to identify illegal drugs and whether overstaffing at the airport has led to abnormally thorough searches. One commissioner asked why local police seemed to be looking over the shoulders of federal security agents during baggage searches, as though eyeballing luggage for illegal drugs. Others asked when it became illegal to fly with prescription drugs divided into day-by-day pill holders.

 

“Keep going up the line of TSA until you find someone who will talk to us,” airport commissioner Len Alberts told airport manager Butch Lisenby.

 

The commission is a volunteer town board that is appointed by the Board of Selectmen and charged with the custody, care and management of the airport.

The board members were particularly unhappy with a written response to their concerns from federal Transportation Security Administration director Joseph Salter and his absence from the meeting.

 

As an interim strategy to reduce the number of arrests, the commissioners voted to post large signs at the terminal entrance warning departing passengers about having poppers in their possession. In statistics compiled by local police half of the 34 drug charges placed against passengers this summer have been related to poppers, a controlled substance under Massachusetts state law and a stimulant used by some in the gay male tourist population in Provincetown.

At the regular September meeting last week the five-member commission squeezed into the conference room alongside Provincetown Police Chief Ted Meyer and Staff Sgt. Warren Tobias. Cape Air president Dan Wolf participated by phone. In the terminal area a security agent read a newspaper during the lull in flights.

 

Since TSA agents were posted at the Provincetown airport in 2002 that agency has paid local police $270,000 to provide a required law enforcement presence, as backup to the administrative searches conducted by the federal agents.

 

At times during the meeting airport manager Lisenby struggled to describe TSA policies, in the absence of TSA representatives, when the commissioners raised questions about the security searches. Emphasizing that he couldn’t speak for TSA Lisenby said that generally there are three types of baggage searches: an outside only, a limited inside and a complete “full open” inside. The system of who is chosen for what type of search is known only to TSA, he said.

 

From a combination of statistics discussed at the meeting the TSA posts between three and six security agents at the Provincetown airport during a given shift and one Provincetown police officer. In contrast Cape Air president Dan Wolf said he averages four people per plane outbound to Boston and on average 15 outbound passengers per day.

 

Wolf offered his own analysis of the discrepancies in security searches and numbers of arrests between the Provincetown airport and larger facilities, as described by the commissioners. The high volume of passengers at Logan Airport in Boston, Wolf said as an example, keeps TSA agents busy looking for weapons and other items that threaten the safety of commercial flights. In Provincetown the low volume of passengers leaves plenty of time for agents to be more thorough in their searches, still within the mandate of federal law.

 

“They’re going to be more thorough,” Wolf said. “That’s the reality.”

 

This week TSA director Joseph Salter said Provincetown airport is adequately staffed, in line with airports of similar size, and that some reduction in personnel occurs during the off-season. Salter questioned the validity of Wolf’s recent statements that implied Cape Air’s business in Provincetown has been and could be further hurt by security screenings that have led to arrests for illegal drug possession. Salter said he does plan to visit Provincetown but that security concerns with the Republican National Convention in New York and other issues have taken precedence.

 

“My job is to make sure you get on the plane in a certain condition and get off the plane in that same condition,” Salter said. “We’re not looking for drugs. We’re looking for items that can hurt someone. … We’re looking now for sharp items, bombs, shoe bombs. That guy [‘shoe bomber’ Richard Reed] meant to blow a plane out of the sky.”

 

Salter is based at the T.F. Green airport in Providence.

He took responsibility for the spoke airports in Barnstable, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket and Provincetown in 2002. He said his security agents do not make judgments based on a passenger’s appearance, recalling an incident with a person in a wheelchair having a loaded gun at the Providence airport. Having lost many friends and co-workers in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York Salter said he is keenly aware of that in his work and in the values he instills in his employees.

 

“We do an excellent job and I’m going to defend my agency [and its employees] to the fullest,” he said.

“We’re not there for any other purpose and we’re not going to stop for anybody.”

 

This week a Cape Air passenger arrested on Aug. 27 for possessing two bottles of unmarked prescription drugs complained this week about his arrest by local police after having his case dismissed in Orleans District Court. The drugs are considered Class E controlled substances under state law.

 

The 44-year-old Chicago man, a human resource executive of a Fortune 500 company, was arrested for having what he described as two unmarked travel bottles of his prescribed sleeping pills (Ambien) and medication for attention deficit disorder (Ritalin). The man said he offered to have prescriptions faxed to the airport following a security screening of his laptop case where the pill bottles were found. Local police told the man the faxed prescription would be needed for his court date and declined to release him.

 

“I guess the big question to ask is, did you have to arrest me? Put me in a cell? Make me spend another $600 in accommodations?” the man said by phone. “What is the point?”

 

The man’s case was dismissed on Aug. 30, with no court costs to be paid, after he produced a copy of his prescriptions. When the man asked for his pills to be returned he was told they had not been tested yet and that pursuing their return could lengthen his case. (The man said he carried his drugs in travel bottles by habit to minimize the chance that others would know what pills he’s taking.)

 

During his arrest the man called a friend and business owner in Provincetown, Dianna Matherly of Tristan Gallery. Matherley worried this week about the financial impact of the arrests on town business. “That one man has a trickle down effect,” she said. “If he tells four other people, and those people [had] planned to spend two weeks in Provincetown. … That is where my mind clicks. I felt sad to have to apologize to my friend.”

[+ glutes]

resurrection

 

I am resurrecting this ***WARNING*** because it is very 'timely'...

[BewareofNick]

Anthony Holloway is still working this scam.