Police invade your financial privacy even more often now.

Forums › Off topic › Police invade your financial privacy even more often now.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1748056 26-Mar-2017 13:43

Why the difference for physical cash vrs electronic?

ie 10,000 vrs 1000.

I'm not a criminal obviously but like the other poster here, I fear the relevant people being drowned in notifications and its only a matter of time before someone presses the wrong button and someone gets labelled as a criminal.

Even if you don't get charged do we have faith in the banks not putting a "Note" against your account which will be shared with other banks then appear on credit ratings etc.

Look at the cock-ups that happened in the UK with Muslim sounding customers getting their accounts all shut down.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33677946

I'm sure there's enough tax evasions with the various "trusts" and houses being sold/flipped in nz.

Wont these changes cause problems to those overseas entities with nz based trust business...

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user

#1748067 26-Mar-2017 14:18

Geektastic:
gzt:
Article: And banks say they can't rule out passing on the cost to customers in fee hikes.

Great. Bank fees. I find this whole thing surprising.

The scale of data collection proposed is unprecedented.

What will it really achieve now there are so many ways to move money around?

If the police want the information they should pay the cost of getting it.

But that doesn't fit their agenda of investigating crimes without an actual complaint, but only when it suits them. Besides, if they're paying for it, we're still paying for it.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1748128 26-Mar-2017 15:51

cadman:

Geektastic:
gzt:
Article: And banks say they can't rule out passing on the cost to customers in fee hikes.

Great. Bank fees. I find this whole thing surprising.

The scale of data collection proposed is unprecedented.

What will it really achieve now there are so many ways to move money around?

If the police want the information they should pay the cost of getting it.

But that doesn't fit their agenda of investigating crimes without an actual complaint, but only when it suits them. Besides, if they're paying for it, we're still paying for it.

Yes but at least it comes from their budget...

alienwithin

136 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 15
Inactive user

#1748132 26-Mar-2017 16:05

i see only one problem with this, people blamming the police. It's not the police who are responsible for these law changes. And people had plenty of opportunities to comment on this when it was before select committee

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1748137 26-Mar-2017 16:18

alienwithin:
i see only one problem with this, people blamming the police. It's not the police who are responsible for these law changes. And people had plenty of opportunities to comment on this when it was before select committee

That implys there's a new law while the article only mentions "regulations", which may well have been implemented under existing powers without any public consultation. I know this is the first I've heard of it, but then I don't really go digging.

And the police have some power to influence policy, it may not have got them anywhere but look at the push for gun carry for example.

dudalemon

38 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1748140 26-Mar-2017 16:28

A friend of mine works at a bank and they have a specific team that monitors "red flags" which goes up on any transactions over 10k. So yea, as other's have said, nothing new.

I personally don't have a problem with this. I think anyone that has a problem with this is doing something that they shouldn't be doing..

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1748166 26-Mar-2017 16:58

dudalemon:

A friend of mine works at a bank and they have a specific team that monitors "red flags" which goes up on any transactions over 10k. So yea, as other's have said, nothing new.

I personally don't have a problem with this. I think anyone that has a problem with this is doing something that they shouldn't be doing..

Other than the fact the cut off limit has been dropped by 90%....so bigger referral rate and more likely to also make mistakes.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1748209 26-Mar-2017 18:01

alienwithin:

i see only one problem with this, people blamming the police. It's not the police who are responsible for these law changes. And people had plenty of opportunities to comment on this when it was before select committee

I'm not sure that Joe Public often gets the chance to turn up and comment on things at Select Committees - not that it would make a hill of beans difference if he did...this kind of intrusion into your finances is for the benefit of the government not you, so they won't be inclined to listen.

Note how much they love this way of banking because they can keep tabs on everyone with just a few key presses - compared to the amount of effort they do not put in to things like burglary etc. which probably affect far more people.

Stu

Hammered
8743 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2409

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1748215 26-Mar-2017 18:08

Banks have been flagging cash transactions of $10,000 or more for some time (anti money-laundering laws), the only change will be that the police will also have access to this data without requiring a warrant. Please keep in mind this is CASH transactions, and not electronic transactions!

Seems to me there are either a lot of you that handle huge amounts of CASH, or you're not reading/understanding things entirely correctly.

The other part of the suggested change involves electronic transfers of $1,000 or more to offshore locations/accounts.

People often mistake me for an adult because of my age.

Keep calm, and carry on posting.

Referral Links: Sharesies -

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? If so, please consider supporting us by subscribing.

No matter where you go, there you are.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1748218 26-Mar-2017 18:18

Stu:

Banks have been flagging cash transactions of $10,000 or more for some time (anti money-laundering laws), the only change will be that the police will also have access to this data without requiring a warrant. Please keep in mind this is CASH transactions, and not electronic transactions!

Seems to me there are either a lot of you that handle huge amounts of CASH, or you're not reading/understanding things entirely correctly.

The other part of the suggested change involves electronic transfers of $1,000 or more to offshore locations/accounts.

Or just poor media reporting. Cash transactions are potentially also electronic transactions, under different peoples interpretations. Eg you pay by cash for something electronically, rather than by credit electronically. I can't see to many people taking out more than 10k in physical notes, to move it to another bank, or even pay someone, and banks tend to have cash handling fees these days too.

NZ media does actually also say "Banks are already required to report "suspicious" transactions by their customers that involve more than $10,000 in cash. " . So I am guessing that already applies to electronic transactions too.

It is all very big brother though. Maybe they don't think people in NZ are capable of saving money, and instead always borrow.

Stu

Hammered
8743 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2409

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1748222 26-Mar-2017 18:23

No, it's just suspicious CASH transactions. That's the folding stuff.

People often mistake me for an adult because of my age.

Keep calm, and carry on posting.

Referral Links: Sharesies -

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? If so, please consider supporting us by subscribing.

No matter where you go, there you are.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#1748245 26-Mar-2017 18:54

dudalemon: A friend of mine works at a bank and they have a specific team that monitors "red flags" which goes up on any transactions over 10k.

That's correct. Banks are already required to report suspicious transactions. Your friend's team assesses transactions over this limit and determines if these have any characteristics that could be suspicious. Ie; customer reference: "Pablo Escobar escape plan", "Helicopter Hire"

So yea, as other's have said, nothing new.

Dead wrong. Institutions are now required to notify police of all transactions over x amount. That is a big change.

I personally don't have a problem with this. I think anyone that has a problem with this is doing something that they shouldn't be doing..

It's not going to cause problems for anyone here. It's somewhat equivalent to requiring the police to intercept all phone calls at 3am in the morning because that's when the meth users buy drugs. It's not a minor change.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#1748248 26-Mar-2017 19:01

Stu: No, it's just suspicious CASH transactions. That's the folding stuff.

If that's the case, the article is not particularly clear on that:

Article says: The new rules will also see banks alert the Financial Intelligence Unit to all international wire transfers from New Zealand of $1000.

Similar on the 10K if that's cash only.

Anyone have a reference to a clearer article?

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1748278 26-Mar-2017 19:09

joker97:

Perhaps they are trying to track down cash traders [hint IRD notified]? Meth cooks? Drug dealers? Something other dealers?[Police notified]

Considering 99%+ of drug dealers and meth cooks wouldn't even think of ever using a bank (because it would get them caught, not because they're all stupid), it makes this all pretty pointless.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1748279 26-Mar-2017 19:11

gzt:
dudalemon: A friend of mine works at a bank and they have a specific team that monitors "red flags" which goes up on any transactions over 10k.

That's correct. Banks are already required to report suspicious transactions. Your friend's team assesses transactions over this limit and determines if these have any characteristics that could be suspicious. Ie; customer reference: "Pablo Escobar escape plan", "Helicopter Hire"

So yea, as other's have said, nothing new.

Dead wrong. Institutions are now required to notify police of all transactions over x amount. That is a big change.

I personally don't have a problem with this. I think anyone that has a problem with this is doing something that they shouldn't be doing..

It's not going to cause problems for anyone here. It's somewhat equivalent to requiring the police to intercept all phone calls at 3am in the morning because that's when the meth users buy drugs. It's not a minor change.

Potentially it could affect people here. Say you need to pay a deposit on a house, and they seller specifies cash on the SPA. Or a cash purchase of a car, where the buyer will only take cash upon exchange of the keys. What I suspect will happen is that banks will start charging big fees on withdrawal of large amounts of cash. Potentially it also could be a device to stop a run on the banks as well. eg People start to panic prior to a financial crisis, if they learn a bank may collapse. That is why in 2007, they brought in the deposit guarantee scheme, because they could see that potentially there could have been a run on the banks. But now NZ is one of the only countries without any guarantee scheme.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5