# Privacy - transactions over $10k



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Certainly relevant to people using this forum... as you may know, banks are required to report to government any transactions over $10,000 or anything they suspect may be a transaction related to crime. For instance, a couple months ago I deposited $5,000 cash at a bank branch and got grilled by the teller agent and her manager about where the money came from. So that deposit of mine probably got reported to FINTRAC as suspicious... well hooray. I go and take money to my bank, and end up getting reported to the government as a consequence of bringing them deposits.

CBC story: FINTRAC collecting too much info on innocent Canadians

_quoting:_

Too many files have nothing to do with terrorism or money laundering, privacy commissioner says

Canada's privacy watchdog is blasting a federal agency that is supposed to be gathering financial intelligence on suspected terrorists and money launderers, but has also collected personal banking records of thousands of ordinary Canadians not suspected of anything.

By law, Canadian banks, casinos and thousands of other businesses are required to report all financial transactions over $10,000, and any movement of money they suspect may be linked to terrorism or laundering the proceeds of crime.

But in a special report to Parliament today, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart complains that an investigation of the Financial Transactions Reports Analysis Centre, known as FINTRAC, found far too many files that have nothing to do with terrorism or money laundering.

Instead, Stoddart's investigators found everyday financial transactions of ordinary Canadians — things such as down payments for homes and cars, and wire transfers from families overseas to their children studying here.

Stoddart's report points out that FINTRAC has amassed over 165 million reports containing personal information about financial transactions.

Civil liberties advocates say that likely means that thousands of innocent Canadians have been put under a cloud of suspicion, lumped in with suspected money launderers and terrorist financiers.

Stoddart's investigators found one case in which a Canadian bank filed a suspicious transaction report when a local shopkeeper deposited $570 in small bills.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And someone is probably going to respond, well if I'm doing nothing illegal then why would I care? Let me answer that.

Lots of normal activity can get flagged to FINTRAC. For instance, making a large transfer between accounts. Or smaller things, like depositing cash at a bank branch (in today's world it's so unusual for anyone to have cash, that it's automatically suspicious -- you should see the looks I get from tellers when I try to deposit even $2k). The article mentions the example of a shopkeeper who deposited just $570.

Once FINTRAC has a history like this, the civil liberties association points out that we don't know how this information circulates within government.

It's possible that border security or the Canada Revenue Agency gets flagged. So maybe you get hassled more crossing the border, or you get audited. Is that fair that I should get harassed more by the government, purely as a consequence of moving *my* money around at my discretion?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

ok it was just the money that used to be in your IB account, no reason for the branch to get uptight

but maybe don't go in wearing that black latex mask?  banks have a hard time with that kind of stuff


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Certainly relevant to people using this forum... as you may know, banks are required to report to government any transactions over $10,000 or anything they suspect may be a transaction related to crime. For instance, a couple months ago I deposited $5,000 cash at a bank branch and got grilled by the teller agent and her manager about where the money came from. So that deposit of mine probably got reported to FINTRAC as suspicious... well hooray. I go and take money to my bank, and end up getting reported to the government as a consequence of bringing them deposits.
> 
> CBC story: FINTRAC collecting too much info on innocent Canadians
> 
> ...


 ... one wonder if the bank uses the same viligance on their own employees? eg. plenty of times when mortgage fraud is committed, it involves an insider to do accomplish the job. :rolleyes2: and bank customer-services are offshored to foreign call-centers >>> one shudders <<<<


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i love this stuff
governments worldwide are using the pretext of "terrorism" to throw a net over every financial transaction they possibly can
this is about tax evasion not terrorism ... and it will only increase

which will add pressure to people seeking alternative ways to move "money"
all the bitcoin naysayers take notice
and this is much of what is driving gold and silver

we are moving steadily into a world where everything we read watch or intellectually pursue is tracked along with our movements, financial transactions, health status and social networks

drip by drip ... and for every drip big business and government has a perfectly good "explanation"


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Seems like a waste of time...tracking everything > $10k. That used to be a bunch of money. Not anymore....


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

fatcat said:


> this is about tax evasion not terrorism ......


The list is much longer and you certainly can't exclude terrorism from it, come on now. But thanks to globalization & other factors, the problem has gotten, and it will get bigger indeed.

Seems you're not counting other types of corruption/fraud/drug-human trafficking, etc. etc. 

Criminal activity, organized or not, is not small by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, it's a multi-billion annual industry in the triple digits.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> The list is much longer and you certainly can't exclude terrorism from it, come on now. But thanks to globalization & other factors, the problem has gotten, and it will get bigger indeed.
> 
> Seems you're not counting other types of corruption/fraud/drug-human trafficking, etc. etc.
> 
> Criminal activity, organized or not, is not small by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, it's a multi-billion annual industry in the triple digits.


well, i think the war on drugs is a huge failure and it is responsible for probably 50% or more of the global criminal activity so legalizing or decriminalizing most drugs would eliminate much of the crime problem

and i think the nsa debacle has proven that governments just vacuum up data without any real justification, they are like 5 year olds with a brand new bag of oreo cookies, they just can't seem to stop, more is never enough

i seriously question the usefulness of having every transaction over 10k reported

and what about privacy rights ? .. the right to be free of government intrusion ?

and of course they never, ever prove the usefulness of this information gathering, they just demand more and more data


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I'm with fatcat. Legalize small quantities on this stuff and save us (taxpayers) billions $$$ in failed attempts to fight a war you will never win any other way.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I wired just over $9000 to a jeweler in St.Kitt's for a ring and the bank made me fill out a bunch of papers that they were for jewelry and not unpolished stones.To put my own mind at ease when I got the Watch I took it in and showed my branch .I send $30,000 -$50,000 to Vegas every time I go there and never once been asked to explain it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Somehow I don't think this is about drugs or terrorism, but just about having an excuse to track everything in more detail.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

The $10k flag is related to large CASH transactions. I would say cash transactions of this size are still pretty uncommon.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

atrp2biz: that is not true. Read the article

First the banks have discretion to report any transaction even if it's much smaller than $10k. The article mentions a shopkeeper who was flagged because he deposited a small amount in "suspicious" cash.

You can read this at FINTRAC's web site. Reporting suspicious transactions

So perhaps when a man with middle eastern or Indian descent walks into a bank and deposits some cash (could be as low as a few hundred $), that's a "suspicious transaction" and gets reported to the government (he might be a terrorist right?)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The biggest problem I have is that the information collected by Canadian authorities, is subject to the due diligence and accuracy of whoever is inputting the information. If there are inaccuracies, the individual would never know and there is no procedure for correcting the mistakes.

In today's world, Canadian authorities now share all their information with the US authorities, and then whomever they share files with. Once in the US data file.........Canadians have no rights or recourse.

Oooppps......sorry.......tough luck.

Information gathering often begins with a mandate that everyone agrees is necessary......but soon expands well beyond the original intent.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

fatcat said:


> i love this stuff
> governments worldwide are using the pretext of "terrorism" to throw a net over every financial transaction they possibly can
> this is about tax evasion not terrorism ... and it will only increase
> 
> ...


Problem is the US government has already found ways to hack the anonymity of bitcoins.

They recently closed down the Silk Road website, arrested the website owner, and confiscated all the bitcoins. They also seized all the bitcoins of the buyers and sellers on the website and know all their real identities.

Bitcoins are anonymous.........until they aren't.

If you read the whole story on how the US government managed to do it, working in coordination around the world, it is pretty amazing the extent of expertise and the lengths they will go, when they have a mission.

Lifting fingerprints from a cup in a coffee shop in Europe.........just a small sample.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> *Problem is the US government has already found ways to hack the anonymity of bitcoins.*
> 
> They recently closed down the Silk Road website, arrested the website owner, and confiscated all the bitcoins. They also seized all the bitcoins of the buyers and sellers on the website and know all their real identities.
> 
> ...


your lead sentence is not entirely true (or false) ... the relative anonymity of bitcoin is still intact ... it has been known from the beginning that bitcoin offers _relative_ but not complete anonymity ... 



> from wikipedia: Bitcoin transactions are seen as relatively anonymous. Bitcoins were the medium of exchange used in the online black market website Silk Road. Some Bitcoin proponents are concerned that such associations may bring about negative perceptions of the currency.
> 
> The privacy of Bitcoin is the subject of active academic research. Because Bitcoin transactions are broadcast to the entire network, they are inherently public. *Using external information, it is possible, though usually difficult, to associate Bitcoin identities with real-life identities.
> *


it will still be a real problem for governments to catch transactions that originate from user to user (that avoid exchanges) and go in and out of bitcoin quickly

that the us government caught the dread pirate was pretty much predictable (except to him of course)


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The biggest problem I have is that the information collected by Canadian authorities, is subject to the due diligence and accuracy of whoever is inputting the information. If there are inaccuracies, the individual would never know and there is no procedure for correcting the mistakes.
> 
> In today's world, Canadian authorities now share all their information with the US authorities, and then whomever they share files with. Once in the US data file.........Canadians have no rights or recourse.


Really good points here. I think you're right that there's very little (or no) accountability for those reports and mistakes. How does a person (like me) even know if I've been reported to FINTRAC? This whole system seems to really lack checks and balances. Same with the no fly lists and all this other modern terrorism-scare junk.

And absolutely right about the information sharing across the borders. What Canada learns, the USA learns.

I really feel upset about the asymmetric power. As citizens our information is collected without us being informed about it, and it ends up in all kinds of places that we will never find out. And one day something in your file can come back to bite you (e.g. get audited by the CRA, or detained at the border) and you'll have no idea what was the cause behind it. Which means you can't challenge it, or force anyone to officially retract it.

What's completely missing in this "national security" system is the closed loop of accountability and recourse. Unlike traditional law, now we have a system where you don't know who your accuser is (or was) nor can you see the evidence they have filed against you. It's disgusting!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Giving people authority and then allowing for no accountability..........is a recipe for abuse.

The other day, a cop was sentenced to 1 year in jail, for beating a guy mercilessly for no reason. It happened in Barrie, but it happens all over.

If it wasn't for the security camera, that the defense lawyer dug up (lawyer paid by money scraped together by his parents and grandmother), the guy could have been sent to jail for 2 years for a trumped up charge of assaulting a police officer. The offending officer just made up the charges, and although witnessed by 2 security officers and other police officers..........nobody came forward to tell what really happened.

Thank goodness for security cameras and cellphone cameras these days. At least we are getting "some" of the truth......but a lot gets missed.

People are giving up to much to "feel safe" from unknown "terrorists". They have a higher risk of danger from their own police force.

Consumer watchdogs have been warning for a long time.........but people shrug and say.......oh, it couldn't happen to me.

So I guess we get the government we deserve.......and right now we have loonie tunes in charge who see a terrorist behind every tree and every skateboarding teenager a threat to our survival.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Yep, I see james' point here and I agree with it. We all make mistakes throughout our lives and I find it offensive that the govt is recording all of this in such detail. Looks to me like we're guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

sags said:


> 1. Thank goodness for security cameras
> 2. People are giving up to much to "feel safe" from unknown "terrorists"......we have loonie tunes in charge who see a terrorist behind every tree and every skateboarding teenager a threat to our survival.


*1.* We need more in public places. 

Britain  has  the highest CCTV networks in the world; 1 for every 11/14 people per below article.  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ry-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html

*2.* The liberty issue is no doubt a concern, but I wonder if you would dismiss the terror suspects/threats that easily, if for example, the Toronto 18 had been successful 7 years ago in their plans of detonating few truck bombs in the city's downtown core, as well as locations such as CBC, CSIS and Ottawa's Parliament to behead the PM & other high profiles.

11 out of the 18 received convictions ranging from life sententes to few months [5 were minors, in reference to your teenage comment]; one served 2 out of a 7 year sentence, and what did he do upon his release?
http://globalnews.ca/news/864516/member-of-toronto-18-killed-in-syria-reports/

So much for lack of liberty here.

What about the ones that will make it back home alive? Will they enrol in higher education?
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...o_syria_in_record_numbers_to_join_rebels.html


----------



## LifeInsuranceCanada.com (Aug 20, 2012)

the-royal-mail said:


> Yep, I see james' point here and I agree with it. We all make mistakes throughout our lives and I find it offensive that the govt is recording all of this in such detail. Looks to me like we're guilty until proven innocent.


You are very guilty until proven innocent. I think consumers should be up in arms over this. They have no idea what's going on with Fintrac.

To be clear, it's not just banks, and it's not just $10,000 cash transactions. It's anything at all that could be deemed suspicious, even if you don't complete the transaction - you get reported and the reporting entity isn't allowed to indicate that you're being reported. Banks, investment advisors, real estate agents, life insurance agents, and on and on are all covered under this. They're required to take training, analyse risk possibilities and scan this stuff like a hawk. And given the heavy penalties for not conforming, what would you do if you were in the industry? Safest to just report everything, can't go wrong there. 

The reaility is, you can and quite possibly are being watched and reported under Fintrak all over the place. Cash out your life insurance in a fashion that your life insurance broker deems as 'suspicious' (without any qualification really) and you get reported without your knowledge. And reported to who? Not the police - a government agency. And by government agency, yeah, that's hired beauracrats with no accountability to consumers. 

I have to comply but I don't like it. If you read the requirements, it's very orwellian.

_And if that's not bad enough, the financial institutions and Fintrak are leading the charge to move this stuff forward, not back._ They're basically required to take a proactive approach to this so they're always looking for new ways that someone could be deemed suspicious - and implementing those things. I'm seeing more and more nonsense even from life insurance companies on this stuff all the time. It's not stable, it's getting ever tighter.

Geez, this year I had to take a 4WD vehicle in to see a client 500k away from me who was recovering in bed from open heart surgery, just to look at his driver's license, to verify ID. Putting aside the creepy factor in that case, the consumer was already a client of the insurance company and had been for many many years. Fintrak told me I didn't need to verify ID for that type of transaction, and worse, Fintrak's guidelines explicitely state that the type of policy was exempt from ID verification, yet the compliance department at the insurance company decided that it had to be done nonetheless. I trust it's clear how there's potential fallout from this kind of stuff that in the longterm is bad for consumers.


----------

