# conspiracy / entrapment



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

Banks are legally bound to report large transactions, knowing the government may seize the funds.
So ? are banks bound to warn the customer of the RISK of undertaking a transaction ?

Uninformed customers may do large transactions that are clearly at risk, yet the customer has no knowlege. Clearly banks must inform customers of risky investments so they must also inform
customers of any KNOW RISK in a transaction. 

Large transactions from sanctioned nations are clearly at risk. If the bank fails to inform the customer of the risks of such a transaction then the bank IS conspiring to entrap the customer !!

Here Canada and the major banks are criminal actors ! that seize large funds from niave clients
with more money than brains.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

spowage said:


> Banks are legally bound to report large transactions, knowing the government may seize the funds.
> So ? are banks bound to warn the customer of the RISK of undertaking a transaction ?
> 
> Uninformed customers may do large transactions that are clearly at risk, yet the customer has no knowlege. Clearly banks must inform customers of risky investments so they must also inform
> ...


Entrapment is when they entice you to do something illegal that you wouldn't otherwise do.

It isn't a crime to report suspicious behaviour to the relevant authorities, in this case they've specified a specific dollar value that they consider suspicious.

The risk is being suspected of a crime, that risk exists everywhere all the time.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

spowage said:


> Banks are legally bound to report large transactions, knowing the government may seize the funds.
> So ? are banks bound to warn the customer of the RISK of undertaking a transaction ?
> 
> Uninformed customers may do large transactions that are clearly at risk, yet the customer has no knowlege. Clearly banks must inform customers of risky investments so they must also inform customers of any KNOW RISK in a transaction.
> ...


First of all the onus is on you to find out how much you can transfer overseas. Why are you complaining here on this forum?

The rules on money transfers are quite clear, and need to be followed. It is NOT entrapment by the banks who must
follow Canadian rules when it comes to large transfers of funds to foreign countries.

Ignorance of the law and rules is no excuse, and you only have yourself to blame for not finding out what the rules are first before EFT. 


Quote from the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency):


> International tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance are costly to taxpayers worldwide, and are unfair to businesses and individuals who follow the rules. The Government is committed to growing Canada’s tax base by searching out tax cheats, while simultaneously lowering the tax burden for businesses and families.





> Economic Action Plan 2013 introduced important new measures to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. These measures included the requirement for financial institutions to report international electronic funds transfers (EFTs) of $10,000 or more to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) beginning in January 2015. This information helps the CRA to identify taxpayers who may be participating in aggressive tax avoidance or who may be attempting to conceal income and assets offshore.
> 
> T*his new requirement to report to the CRA applies to the same financial intermediaries that are already reporting information on international EFTs to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA). *That means no added administrative burden or red tape.


See link for more info:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplnc/eft-ti/menu-eng.html


----------



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

Any transaction ,check cashing may involve risk. If the bank is aware of a risk then in the contract of the transaction that risk must be revealed by the bank. As the contract of the transaction implies a mutual agreement. The bank knows that any check over 10k must be reported ,and then is obliged to inform the client. As the check is from a sanctioned nation then the LARGE check is clearly at RISK. Canada can simply 'suspect' the check and seize the cashed funds. This IS entrapment. No criminal would risk such a transaction and CANADA knows that !! Only niave people would blindly cash a LARGE check from a sanctioned nation ! People with more money than brains !. Canada and its banks must inform all customers seeking to transfer large funds from sanctioned nations, that it is at RISK of being seized.
That is way NOW they offer anyone the option to document a transfer BEFORE . 
In the US one can also document AFTER the funds are seized. As I see it MANY are trapped and billions are seized from those with more MONEY than BRAINS. == entrapment !


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

Like others have said you are using the word entrapment completely wrong, but I digress.

"The Bank" notifies the government of large transactions, but this more likely then not isn't something the teller you are dealing with does. It's probably a batch process that sends a report to the government or something along those lines. Heck, the tellers might not even know about the risk.

Also a criminal doesn't have to be some criminal mastermind, it can be someone evading their small amount of taxes. People do risk it all the time, which is why they have measures in place to prevent it.

It's really unfortunate that this happened to you, but you make it sound like someone is making a bunch of money off of this, when this isn't what this is about at all.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

spowage said:


> Any transaction ,check cashing may involve risk. If the bank is aware of a risk then in the contract of the transaction that risk must be revealed by the bank. As the contract of the transaction implies a mutual agreement.


A mutual agreement in what respects? You have money in a bank acct in Canada, You write a check or a EFT to a bank, Financial Institution or a person in a sanctioned country. You should know that any fund transfers involves some risk as the bank is obliged to report to FINTRAC (a security specific branch of the federal government for tracking financial issues,). 



> The bank knows that any check over 10k must be reported ,and then is obliged to inform the client. As the check is from a sanctioned nation then the LARGE check is clearly at RISK. Canada can simply 'suspect' the check and seize the cashed funds.


Any transaction at the threshold of $10k has to be reported, and this is done automatically by the financial institutions banking system.
In case of a manual transaction, (a check written on your account to a foreign entity), the teller is not involved directly nor are they obligated to tell you the transaction is being reported. How would the teller know if you are, (or are not) involved in suspicious criminal activities, which can also include financing terrorism here in Canada or in sanctioned countries. 

From the FINTRAC document (link below) 


> *There are penalties if you fail to meet the suspicious transaction reporting obligations*. Failure to report a suspicious transaction could lead to up to five years imprisonment, a fine of up to $2,000,000, or both. Alternatively, failure to meet the suspicious transaction reporting obligations can lead to an administrative monetary penalty.
> 
> Penalties for failure to report do not apply to employees who report suspicious transactions to their superior.
> 
> ...





> spowage:
> This IS entrapment. No criminal would risk such a transaction and CANADA knows that !! *Only niave people would blindly cash a LARGE check from a sanctioned nation* ! People with more money than brains !. Canada and its banks must inform all customers seeking to transfer large funds from sanctioned nations, that it is at RISK of being seized.


If the seized money transfer was FROM a sanctioned country, then you need to follow up with the financial institution involved as to why the funds were seized. Canada is not responsible for informing everyone that does international transactions that the funds involved may be at risk of being seized. 

If you smuggle goods or money across border crossings or airports without declaring the items or money above $10,000, and are discovered by the border security, those funds are seized as well. 

In some cases you can get the money back after an explanation why you didn't declare the funds in the first place and where you got the funds from. If your explanation satisfies border security, you may be able to get your funds back after paying a hefty fine for not declaring the funds in the first place. Otherwise the funds are seized permanently on suspicion of money laundering activity. 

http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/publications/guide/Guide2/2-eng.asp#s3-1


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

As per my post on your other thread, it is illegal for a bank employee to notify a client that their transaction may be suspicious or reported. 
At some point, if the funds are legitimate and clear properly you, or your friend, may get their money back.
Almost no one deposits large cheques drawn on banks in other countries. That in itself is suspicious. First there is a substantial hold period for funds to clear. At least 25 business days. The bank would have informed your friend of this. Any one willing to wait out the hold would trigger questions.
Most people would wire funds.


----------



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

Banks know a large check from a sanctioned nation must be reported is likely to be seized. It is deceptive of a bank to cash a check without informing the customer that the check is subject to seizure. Any 'law' otherwise is a morally bankrupt. Many unknowing wealthy are systematically robbed by the banks in collusion with the government.
Canada and the banks are using the threat of 'terror' to terrorize the public , using fear to their advantage.


----------



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

Seizing funds that deny a person their lively hood without proof of any crime is morally bankrupt.
Simply suspecting one of crime is prone to abuse. Government is ripe with corruption, none dispute it
cops kill for fun , consider the YVR murder of an innocent visitor from Poland. Canada is criminal here
the world will come to know it as a beast of sorts only catering to the influx of wealthy to prop up the economy.
A global parasite seeking to rob anyone unware of its bag of tricks to grab your money as it's 'laws' allow.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I suggest we all add SPOWAGE to our ignore lists.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> I suggest we all add SPOWAGE to our ignore lists.


+1 Just another internet troll.. and it only took a few replies from real CMF members here to find out.irate:

Maybe we need another emoticon to highlight these? :smiley_simmons:


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

carverman said:


> +1 Just another internet troll.. and it only took a few replies from real CMF members here to find out.irate:
> 
> Maybe we need another emoticon to highlight these? :smiley_simmons:


--> :monkey:


----------



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

If it is true that is not legal for banks to inform customers that their transactions maybe seized, then indeed the system is rigged for banks and government to conspire and steal the funds of unaware customers.

For over a year now the government has seized this bank account several months AFTER the check was cashed.

If all checks over 10k must be reported before being cashed, then all checks must be cashed with approved paperwork.
As it is now the banks cash any check approved or not. 
The current system is a rats nest designed to rob unware customers of their money by simply 'suspecting' them
of being criminals.
A civilized system would require banks to get approval BEFORE cashing, if not approved then docs must be obtained
to get approval !
What we have now is a system DESIGNED to rob the unware customer seeking to cash a check from a sanctioned nation.
I am here to alert the "original mind" of citizens that the government is assuming citizens to be criminals.
The government is no longer serving the public, they are controlling the public like slaves without rights.


----------



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

I just check with Canada Border Services. Any large check from a sanctioned nation without supporting documents will simply be ripped up. So the owner can simply get documents and a re-issue of the check to try again.

A check reported or not is simply cashed by banks knowing it will be seized without informing the customer.
This then allows the bank to keep the cash after reporting it instead of asking the customer to 
have the check reported before cashing it.

The banks could defend the customer by insuring the check is reported before attempting to cash it.

Banks simply leave the customer in the dark , cash the check and seize the cash. This is conspiracy and entrapment.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Thanks for the info!
This thread has added so many more reasons to love the Canadian banks and to own their shares than I realized before.


----------



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Thanks for the info!
> This thread has added so many more reasons to love the Canadian banks and to own their shares than I realized before.


Another example of government corruption. Here where the average house is over a million ,the ambulance
service cannot say when the ambulance will arrive, and claims that it is not a matter of technology. Yet
the technology exists to provide "waiting times" for er rooms ! It surely is a matter of technology that surely
exists elsewhere to provide ETA. Yet they kept us in limbo, where we had to decide to go by car not knowing
when the ambulance would arrive. THIS IS CORRUPTION PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THEY TAKE YOUR MONEY AND THEY WONT SAVE YOUR LIFE !


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

If you're going to troll, at least post something original. You posted the same text on another thread. But I would prefer if you would just go away.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

spowage said:


> Another example of government corruption. Here where the average house is over a million ,the ambulance
> service cannot say when the ambulance will arrive, and claims that it is not a matter of technology. Yet
> the technology exists to provide "waiting times" for er rooms ! It surely is a matter of technology that surely
> exists elsewhere to provide ETA. Yet they kept us in limbo, where we had to decide to go by car not knowing
> when the ambulance would arrive. THIS IS CORRUPTION PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THEY TAKE YOUR MONEY AND THEY WONT SAVE YOUR LIFE !



strange. I was in a drugstore last month when an elderly lady suddenly fell down & injured her wrist. She was conscious, her life was not at risk. The store manager arrived within 2 minutes. It looked as if the wrist might be fractured.

other store customers including myself & the store manager stayed with her. Someone promptly appeared with a little chair, helped her to sit down while waiting for the ambulance. It - the ambulance - arrived within 12 minutes.

i can't think of a country where things could have proceeded faster. 

.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It seems to me the OP's behaviour and state of being (irrational?) needs some intervention by the appropriate authorities to avoid potential risk of health and safety to the OP and those around the OP. I am really surprised the management of this website has not taken some action in this regard.

ISTM that if the OP (and whoever the mystery person is) was taking some of the advice given here to professionally approach the bank and/or the OSFI and/or whoever to 'legitimize' the funds transfer, the system is set up to deal with such issues. Indeed, if the OP was to spend a bit of time with the FINTRAC guidelines http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/publications/guide/guide-eng.asp and perhaps in particular Guidelines 2 and 7A, the OP might try to understand what has to be reported to FINTRAC and how. 

I took a quick scan of Guideline 6 and it seems the bank did exactly what it was supposed to... though perhaps not on a timely basis. We don't know the real facts here since the OP's posts have been way over-the-top, but the OP should at least try to understand the guidelines a bit and then talk to the bank to intiate the appropriate process to recover 'legitimate' funds. OTOH, it seems this funds movement may have been done without proper transparency and disclosure by the OP (or the so called mystery person).


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> *It seems to me the OP's behaviour and state of being (irrational?) needs some intervention by the appropriate authorities to avoid potential risk of health and safety to the OP* and those around the OP. I am really surprised the management of this website has not taken some action in this regard.


<CAST...whirrrrrrr...splosh!> Ah!... gotta be some suckers here to bite on his nonsense, repeated ad nauseum. :mask:
He's even got the "queen" of CMF replying to his drivel now.
He's trolling, and it seems that some CMFers are going for entertainment value. 
I guess the topics must be pretty boring in the money investment categories.


----------



## spowage (Sep 19, 2016)

The BMO ombudsman was contacted as suggested, they indicated that they will reply with details on how BMO deals with large checks from sanctioned nations. So soon some answers may appear ,too reveal the position of BMO.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

so far, so good.

you do have a point when you say that the bank gets to hold the funds throughout the period of the cross-checking, the interpol referencing, etc.

however, sometimes in trying circumstances it's helpful to remember that one's cup is not half empty, it's half full. 

the fact is that interest rates are zip. The bank will probably turn out to have been required to hold the funds in trust, ie they cannot sport around with your money during this holding period. In any appeal hearing, the benchmark interest rate that would automatically be used would be some conservative rate like the bank of canada 30-day T-bill. Even with a large sum of money, interest payable on such amount will still amount to a pittance.

thus at a time of low or next-to-negative interest rates, any lost or forfeited interest income wiill be minimal. That's your half-full cup. I know it does sound bleak, but there are far worse things going on around the planet.

besides, if you do get the money back in the end, there would probably be a mechanism by which one could apply to recover any interest that had been paid during the duration.

please hang in & keep us informed. It sounds as if you're on the right track at last.

.


----------

