Dennis Hastert aside, it shouldn't be a crime to take your own money out of the bank

[NutmegYankee]

52. You would be wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/politics/rules-change-on-irs-seizures-too-late-for-some.html

Mr. McLellan’s money was seized under a subset of civil forfeiture law that governs cash deposits under $10,000, the threshold at which a bank is required to report the transaction to the government. But limiting deposits to less than $10,000 to evade the reporting requirement, known as structuring, is illegal in its own right. Structuring seizures have ballooned in recent years as law enforcement task forces comb through hundreds of thousands of bank reports, often using warrants based on nothing more than a pattern of deposits. The I.R.S. alone made 639 structuring seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005.
.......

During a congressional hearing in February, Representative George Holding, a Republican from North Carolina, referred to Mr. McLellan’s case, saying no crime other than structuring had been alleged. “If that case exists, then it’s not following the policy,” John Koskinen, the commissioner of the I.R.S., said.

But the prosecutor on the case, Steve West, was unmoved. Notified of the hearing by Mr. McLellan’s lawyer at the time, he responded with concern that the seizure warrant in the case, filed under seal but later given to Mr. McLellan, had been handed over to a congressional committee, according to an email exchange provided to The New York Times by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that has taken over the case.

“Your client needs to resolve this or litigate it,” Mr. West wrote. “But publicity about it doesn’t help. It just ratchets up feelings in the agency.” He concluded with a settlement offer in which the government would keep half the money.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/14/federal-government-to-return-107702-irs-seized-from-north-carolina-convenience-store-owner/

Under a subset of civil asset forfeiture laws that regulates cash deposits, the government can seize money from those accused of structuring violations, as it did in McLellan’s case.

.......

Following media coverage of several high profile cases involving Americans who unknowingly committed structuring violations and had money seized, the Internal Revenue Service announced last year it would only pursue structuring violations in instances where the money was tied to a crime.

In March, the Department of Justice followed suit.

In court filings, Walker stated that though the policy change is not retroactive, the government would no longer pursue the case.

Explanations don't matter. Apologies for the second link - it's from a Google search.