I think the civil forfeiture cases involve what sounds like a contradiction: people who are relatively poor with a large sum of cash.
The problem is that this cash is essentially their entire savings. Which means their ability to fight the forfeiture is limited, and the arresting police can infer that. Rich people tend not to need to have even that amount of cash: they can take advantage of the normal banking system to transfer money. And if they were stopped, it's easy to infer that someone is at least rich enough to quickly hire good lawyers to fight the seizure.
However, with that said, I think caymanjim was being intentionally unspecific to prove a point. It's not against the written laws to have large sums of cash. But if such cash represents most of your wealth, and you're transporting it across certain areas, you're at the mercy of various law enforcement who may overstep their actual authority.
A tangent, but why can’t a “poor” person with $10,000 use banks? I am unaware of any income requirement to open a bank account. In many states, even illegal aliens can’t open bank accounts. I’m not sure I understand why the poor can’t use banks. I was poor once with credit in the low 500s and I’ve always had bank accounts.
They can. Why they are less likely to is, I believe, an area of active study. A 2017 study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation cites the two main reasons as trust and fees (page 4): https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2017/2017execsumm.pdf
Most physical banks charge you fees for having a checking account, fees for overdrafting, etc. If you don't pay one of those you can be banned from banking by Chexsystems.
Do you really think most banks charge monthly fees for having a checking account?
I just checked and the bank I had an account with for many years requires $50 deposited to open an account and no minimum balance or monthly fee, includes free checks and debit card.
The credit union I use now has no minimum balance, no monthly fee, and no fee for writing checks. You have to deposit $1 for a share of the credit union, which you get back if you close your account.
My impression is these days they are making over 2% on deposits absolutely risk free, so they better not charge anything.
Yes, any big bank with a lot of branches absolutely charges you. It's very easy to get deals like online banks (more reliable than credit unions BTW) but those don't provide services like depositing cash some people need.
I wasn't talking about online banks, which I know nothing about. I was talking about ordinary everyday banks and credit unions, which allow you to withdraw money from shared networks[1] of ATMs nationwide for free. Like, this is a thing, you don't have to have $20,000 in a Bank of America account to get free checking and you don't need a nationwide branded ATM/branch network. You don't have to have direct deposit either. Or be white. I've literally been in banks and have seen with my own eyes how it works.
Requiring $50 in the account or $10 a month deposits to avoid the fee is still too much. Large overdrafts are also too much. The thing about poor people is they don’t have any money.
"The problem is that this cash is essentially their
entire savings. Which means their ability to fight the forfeiture is limited"
You're implying that people with reasonable documentation for the source of their cash can't just fill out some forms, but need to hire lawyers or something. Have you seen news articles or other sources describing such a situation?
I think the problem is that poor people transferring money typically don't have such documentation on them. (As was the case in the situations I just googled, which are easy to find. For example: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/civil-forfeiture-charl...) Most such seizures are also tied up with "suspicion" of drug trafficking, which means it's no longer a matter of proving the money is yours. You must now prove the money is not involved in your supposed drug trafficking.
The problem is that this cash is essentially their entire savings. Which means their ability to fight the forfeiture is limited, and the arresting police can infer that. Rich people tend not to need to have even that amount of cash: they can take advantage of the normal banking system to transfer money. And if they were stopped, it's easy to infer that someone is at least rich enough to quickly hire good lawyers to fight the seizure.
However, with that said, I think caymanjim was being intentionally unspecific to prove a point. It's not against the written laws to have large sums of cash. But if such cash represents most of your wealth, and you're transporting it across certain areas, you're at the mercy of various law enforcement who may overstep their actual authority.