Bank Deposits (Australia)

[Excido]

Hypothetically speaking of course. What is the maximum deposit you can put into your bank before it starts arousing suspicion. I mean say someone were to deposit a couple thousand dollars per week into their account, is there anything wrong with that? Would it arouse suspicion amongst the bank or would it just be overlooked and the accounts owners funds and deposits are private?

 

[tobala]

I assume you're talking about cash deposits. Here in the USA, I believe anything $10,000 and over is reported (somewhere, I'm not sure exactly where), the rationale being that a bank account can be used to launder money.

With deposits of less than this, the concern is more about being audited by the IRS, if the cash deposits are income that isn't declared.

My guess is that the concerns in Australia would be similar, though the amounts may be different.

 

[Lost and Confused]

Just posting to confirm the 10,000 rule. I work at a bank.

 

[Johnny1]

Actually, I think $10,000 is high. There is a $10,000-level reporting requirement in the U.S., but I'm pretty sure the bank can be obligated to report at lower numbers, such as $5,000. Even $2,000 in cash can be enough to cause a voluntary report that the bank decides to make depending on who the customer is.

Furthermore, they can aggregate (add up) multiple transactions that occur close together such the total requires a report. I don't know the time span they can use for aggregating transactions.

This topic was covered here a couple years go, IIRC. Maybe do a search?

 

[tobala]

So anyone who thinks a bank account is "private" is woefully mistaken. Bank accounts are first line tools for government snoopervision.

 

[Coolio]

Hypothetically speaking of course. What is the maximum deposit you can put into your bank before it starts arousing suspicion. I mean say someone were to deposit a couple thousand dollars per week into their account, is there anything wrong with that? Would it arouse suspicion amongst the bank or would it just be overlooked and the accounts owners funds and deposits are private?

What is the point of putting this money in a bank account? You're better off buying prepaid Visa cards that you can add funds to anonymously at MoneyGram. No ID is necessary for payments of $499 or less I think. You can go to each MoneyGram location in your area, with a different prepaid card, and add $400 on each card using a different name on the same day. Repeat as often as you feel safe repeating.

There is also offshore banking and e-currency like pecunix, where you'd want to buy money orders at stores for $499 or whatever the maximum amount is, and mail them in to add funds to your account.

Your funds and deposits are definitely not private. Banks give law enforcement complete access to your records, the CIA/NSA access to everyones' records combined for data mining and spying, and bank employees work as human intelligence turning in those they suspect might be drug money launderers and other people in need of turning in.

 

[Johnny1]

^ I approved this suggestion solely as a means to protect ones' privacy, as opposed to as a means to launder money or hide cash from narcotics transactions from the government.

 

[Coolio]

^ I approved this suggestion solely as a means to protect ones' privacy, as opposed to as a means to launder money or hide cash from narcotics transactions from the government.

Right. The OP made no mention of wanting to launder money - just to avoid being investigated because his cash deposits are 'suspicious'.

 

[Johnny1]

Government tracking of spending could potentially be used, unlawfully, to spy on lawful political dissenters, and even to unlawfully arrest them. In the interests of freedom, I approved your posting this method even though it could also be used for unlawful purposes.

 

[Smoifer]

I think it's purchases over $5000 and bank deposits-transfers $10,000 and over are reported, I would suggest what coolio is a brilliant idea if you're concerned about raising suspicion or at them very least multiple bank accounts preferably not all in your name, either that or putting the money into a mortgage or something along those lines, you won't have access to it at short notice but you will gain quite a bit in assets.

 

[beasters]

$10,000 is the cut-off for the database, but a one off transaction of $300,000 sometimes doesn't get questions asked. If this is a once off thing without further circumstances that you do not want investigated (for your own personal privacy) I wouldn't worry about it. Only large amounts or regular transfers will ever cause any kind of interview situation.

 

[Johnny1]

^ $300,000 seems like a very large amount of cash. I don't know how you can reconcile your statement that $300K sometimes doesn't get questions asked with your statement that only large amounts will cause an interview situation.

I like the last sentence of your post better, beasters: large amounts will cause an interview situation.

 

[Heuristic]

I'm willing to have a privacy discussion, but the OP's question crosses the line into asking how to further a criminal endeavor.

There's nothing in the advice posted that would enhance the privacy of political dissidents, unless those dissidents are laundering money and hiding income. Nor, in my opinion, do I believe that any of the stated methods would be successful. Certainly a great way to show intent to evade income tax, though.

 

[tobala]

...You're better off buying prepaid Visa cards that you can add funds to anonymously at MoneyGram. No ID is necessary for payments of $499 or less I think. You can go to each MoneyGram location in your area, with a different prepaid card, and add $400 on each card using a different name on the same day. Repeat as often as you feel safe repeating.

There is also offshore banking and e-currency like pecunix, where you'd want to buy money orders at stores for $499 or whatever the maximum amount is, and mail them in to add funds to your account.

I think the following scenario paints a picture of why untraceable cash might be useful--at least to maintain the privacy of certain persons who are making legal purchases:

1. After going to the airport and being denied the sale of a plane ticket, Joe has found himself on a government terrorist shitlist.

2. Joe discovers he was placed on this shitlist because--two years previously--he had accessed a website dedicated to disseminating information on the government's use of white phosphorous to kill civilians in Iraq.

3. Joe uses his prepaid and anonymous debit card to buy a copy of How to Blow Up the White House with Old Stuff You Can Find in Your Garage.

4. Since there is no record of the book sale traceable to Joe, it cannot be used against him at trial after he gets busted on trumped-up charges of domestic terrorism.




Lest you think this is an outlandish scenario, parts one and two happened to a friend of mine.

 

[moonyham]

I have a friend who works at westpac(here in NZ, but its an aus/nz bank) and he told me that anything over 10k is considered dodgey, but they usually wont report you unless you are looking dodgey, like baseball cap, glasses and so on.. the tellers are trained to look out for dodgey people especially when it comes to large deposits. But yeah, anything under 10k all good, no questions asked, and wont be reported.

 

[Heuristic]

I think the following scenario paints a picture of why untraceable cash might be useful--at least to maintain the privacy of certain persons who are making legal purchases:

1. After going to the airport and being denied the sale of a plane ticket, Joe has found himself on a government terrorist shitlist.

2. Joe discovers he was placed on this shitlist because--two years previously--he had accessed a website dedicated to disseminating information on the government's use of white phosphorous to kill civilians in Iraq.

3. Joe uses his prepaid and anonymous debit card to buy a copy of How to Blow Up the White House with Old Stuff You Can Find in Your Garage.

4. Since there is no record of the book sale traceable to Joe, it cannot be used against him at trial after he gets busted on trumped-up charges of domestic terrorism.

Lest you think this is an outlandish scenario, parts one and two happened to a friend of mine.

Joe could also have used CASH--rather than methods that appear designed solely to hide income and/or launder money.

I'm sorry about your friend. But, we both know it's a really big jump from #1 and #2 and #3 to #4. And the methods described above don't really apply to your friend's case.

I'm still unpersuaded that the OP was asking a legitimate question, or that the operational advice he was given above would or could be used for a legitimate purpose.

That said, I want to be clear that I'm not disagreeing with the spirit with which you allowed the advice to stay posted. I'm simply disagreeing with your interpretation of the advice.

 

[tobala]

1. Cash is fine, but I was thinking more along the lines of an Internet debit card-type order. Sure you could send cash, but subversives like convenience too...

2. Didn't intend to jump from 1-4. Just an example of someone who might like an anonymous way of exercising a Constitutional right without it being thrown in his face someday. In any event, it appears he's off the list now as he can get on a plane and fly somewhere.

3. Legitimate? Well I believe that a bit of decent information was passed around, to be used mostly by people who won't be breaking the law with it. If one or a few do, then it really can't be traced to us--besides, laundering cash via debit card is damn inefficient and won't get you any chicks.

I mean, any discussion of law is going to attract some who want the information to perhaps break it at a future time. We wouldn't be able to talk about much if that was the prime consideration.

 

[moonyham]

buying with atm/eftpos/debit/credit cards is good sometimes though. For example:

Someone wants to frame me for murder, and they do. I however, when the murder happened, i have electronic records and film to go with it of me taking some cash out of an atm or buying some goods at a checkout which in turn is the best evidence to prove i wasnt there, at the murder scene, at the time of the murder.

 

[Heuristic]

3. Legitimate? Well I believe that a bit of decent information was passed around, to be used mostly by people who won't be breaking the law with it. If one or a few do, then it really can't be traced to us--besides, laundering cash via debit card is damn inefficient and won't get you any chicks.

I mean, any discussion of law is going to attract some who want the information to perhaps break it at a future time. We wouldn't be able to talk about much if that was the prime consideration.

I'm glad things turned out all right for your friend.

I think we should distinguish between a discussion of the law (x dollars will trigger a reporting requirement under federal law) and a discussion of how to evade the law (if you would like to hide your income from the authorities, try using the follow methods...).

I'm fine with the former; it's the latter that concerns me. Deciding that you want to keep companies or governments from tracking legal purchases is fine; but I don't see any legal point to hiding INCOME from the government, which is the only objective I see being served by the methods offered.

I'm not concerned with any legal liability for the site, or the person who offered the methods; to be honest, I don't think the methods offered have a chance of working.

 

[tobala]

^ As you mentioned in post #16 then, the simplest way to hide cash income from the government is to just spend it (bypassing even the debit card stuff).

But in the USA at least, even this will be hard to do with progressively larger amounts, as walking into the BMW dealer with a bag full of cash doesn't fly anymore.

The reality is that laundering money is very hard to do, doing it with a bank account is probably both the most inefficient AND risky way of going about it, and in all likelihood getting someone to do it for you will be VERY expensive.