Pah! Not as spectacular as this Kent pensioner.
The Apple manager accused of accepting kickbacks in exchange for company secrets had $150,000 stashed in shoeboxes when authorities searched his home, according to news reports. Paul Devine, who faces federal charges and a private lawsuit alleging he was paid $1m to provide confidential data to suppliers of iPhone and iPod …
I do love the way that vehicle stops that end up finding drugs, weapons, or money are almost always described as 'routine', as if cars are habitually searched when someone is stopped for minor traffic offences.
I guess it must just be that the people involved must have gone out of their way to act suspiciously, rather than doing a couple of minutes of the yes,officer / no,officer routine when the police try to talk to them.
"...$150,000 stashed in shoeboxes...".
Because your money's not safe in a bank anymore. Was it ever?
If he did it right his actions would have been highly unethical but very difficult to prosecute.
They could have arranged for him to have the good luck to stumble upon some extremely profitable real estate deals. Does he have any family/friend who need a job or own a company that they could do business with?
Also how hard would it be to go on vacation, setup an overseas bank account, have the money deposited there.
However if he was really, really smart he'd turn down the bribe and be happy with his excellent salary and benefits, not to mention his freedom and self respect.
A few years ago a city councilor here was found to be handing envelopes of cash to his mother to deposit in her bank. He was never charged with anything, let alone convicted.
First they say that this guy, global procurement wallah, used Apple supplied equipment and facilities to communicate with his alleged benefactors.
Now we hear he kept money is SHOE BOXES and still more amazingly IN HIS HOUSE!
Even street level drug dealers have better methods of concealing money.
He could have bought 'instruments' such as money orders or bank drafts to 'hold' the funds; paid them to trusted friends; used a financial adviser, etc. As long as the amounts were under USD$9,500 amounts, bought from different financial institutions and NEVER transmitted funds by SWIFT he would have been safer.
Id this guy is typical of Apple in the 'smarts' department, no wonder they produced Lemon 4.
the magic number is now $5,000 or if the bank feels some thing is wrong. Banks have reported folks for as little as $3,000. I believe there is no way to transfer US dollars from a bank with out swift knowing .
The threshold number is $5,000, but if the banks thinks something rotten is going on, they can generally report it regardless of value.
At least that's how I read the rules regarding moving money around...
Anon to protect the regular deposits of money into my bank accounts which are laughingly called a paycheque.
When I opened a savings account, recently, that was coupled to my checking account, They told me there was a 6 transaction limit (online) on the account. Any more than that would draw federal scrutiny.
shoe boxes are much safer than banks,
this guy is clever! or very expericed
...what you do with money. It is never safe from the government that printed it. They can leach all the value out of it remotely, without even knowing where it is stashed. Inflation is how governments get out of debt, and they are all heavily in debt just now, at least in the West. It is about to let rip big time.
You can get in on their act. The people who prospered in the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic were those who went into debt to buy real assets. Inflation rendered the debts valueless, while the price of the assets rocketed.
Additionally you can further benefit by building subterranean bunkers on your new real estate to sink yourself further in debt
This will cover you for both inflation apocalypse and alien invasion. Make sure to build it over a mile deep though incase the scientologists are right with their solar flare movie.
when was the last time your shoe box had to be bailed out by the government?
"I do love the way that vehicle stops that end up finding drugs, weapons, or money are almost always described as 'routine'" ...
It is far weirder that people don't know laws involving search. In the US and Canada, vehicles can't be searched during traffic stops, unless there is "probable cause". So, if they see blood, weapons, or body parts, in plain view, then there is cause for search. If they search without cause, then the evidence is thrown out.
It gets very complex sometimes. Locally, the police obtained a court order to attach a GPS tracker to a gang leader's car. While looking for a location to install the tracker, the police tech found a gun. Even though the gun was unlicensed, they can't prosecute on the gun, they only had a wiretap order for the GPS tracker, not a search warrant. So the tech put the gun back. And later, the police did find the gun during a search, but the defense argued that the tech who installed the GPS tracker on the first warrant, told the investigators the location of the gun, and since the first warrant was not a search warrant, that the gun evidence should be thrown out.
The balancing act between personal liberty and enforcement of the law is hard. It isn't helped by the fact, that most people's knowledge of law is based on TV and anecdotes.
I feel much better informed!
since the first officer was engaged in a court sanctioned activity when planting the bug, the gun was admissible as evidence.
Still need that roulette wheel icon...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017