The Cash Transactions Ban Bill

A different perspective from an accountant…

3 Likes

I understand the idea but the dark side of things always finds ways around these bottlenecks. Sure they have large cash amounts but in the realm of things they are few and the rest of the population who are law abiding are many. It is a bit like saying you can’t use a VPN or encryption because some bad people do as well, or even all guns are banned because some people use them inappropriately (I know this is saying total bans but it is just for illustrative purposes).

5 Likes

From the linked article:

Data from the Reserve Bank of Australia tells us the use of cash is rapidly diminishing

That undermines the argument. If it is really diminishing rapidly then there is no need to do anything. The ‘problem’ will solve itself without the government’s doing anything.

A criminal has no benefit in holding cash if the cash can’t be used at a business to buy goods and services because the business has chosen not to accept cash.

As the article concedes, the internet / mobile coverage is too crap in many parts of Australia to say that electronic payment mechanisms mean we can phase out cash entirely.

Presuming that you can get over the problems with internet / mobile coverage, while “pay bills on your watch” may be hyperbole / clickbait, paying bills on your watch does come at a price - handing over information regarding your spending habits to party or parties unknown / handing over control of the payment system to secretive, proprietary foreign companies / reduced transparency over fees and percentage overheads.

If the government is serious about phasing out cash then they should pass a law requiring that all electronic payment mechanisms used in Australia be 100% “open”, and also meet adequate privacy standards.

6 Likes

An article regarding a very different view of the reasons for the Cash Transactions Ban Bill.

5 Likes

$100,000 in cash - that’s got to win an award for ballsiness.

Jokes aside, this illustrates how morally bankrupt our politicians are. Do as I say, not as I do.

While exempting political parties in the Ministerial legislative instrument, they are effectively phasing out all cash purchases over time for the rest of us (since there is no indexing of the cash limit).

If cash transactions are to be limited, the limit must be linked directly to the political party disclosure limit (currently $14,000). I think most people would be happy for the latter to be reset to $10,000 as part of this bill, since that would improve political donation transparency.

7 Likes

But it was in a plastic bag. Not brown paper. It makes a difference. :thinking: I think.

Slightly off topic (or maybe not). Huang Xiangmo’s Aldi bag purportedly contained donations from many individuals (mostly employees and relatives of the owner of the fund-raising venue). A large sum can be split to fall below any given limit. To be effective, the limit has to be zero, or as close as possible to it. Anything more than zero just becomes a bookkeeping exercise.

6 Likes

Maybe. Maybe not. See my post above (I think it’s post number 38). Different pieces of legislation deal with the situation differently.

As currently drafted, this legislation makes no allowance for splitting at all i.e. splitting achieves nothing. A “series of payments” is treated the same as a single payment.

So it becomes a concealment or obfuscation exercise (where you are actually doing something dodgy, not that I am suggesting there is anything dodgy about $100,000 in cash from a banned donor in a hopefully reusable Aldi plastic shopping bag, cough).

4 Likes

It was split.

A similar situation might arise at a charity auction where at the end of the event there might be $10,000 or more in cash, plus other transactions. All supported by receipts etc.

Then one person turns up at the bank or the charity cash in hand all in one bucket? All legit, but possibly about to be illegal?

That some of the conditions attached to the proposed legislation are only subject to regulation or ministerial approval is concerning.

P.S.
While ICAC are now onto what appears to be one very poorly thought out evasion, there is no similar body at Federal level, and doubtless other more cunning ways to move donations below the radar.

4 Likes

My understanding is that depositing $10k in cash at a bank is OK. A business might reach that at the end of X days trading and wish to deposit the cash, never mind about charities. However I can’t justify that based on the draft legislation.

The only construction that I have is that a “deposit” is not a “payment”, in the sense that the funds remain yours even though you have deposited them. It is neither a payment for services rendered by the bank, nor a gift to the bank, or at least one hopes not. :slight_smile:

Yes. Typical rubbish legislation.

4 Likes

It seems likely that this is the main reason for the legislation, as well as the phasing out high denomination bank notes. Our money must be in a bank so the government knows exactly how much we have and can do as it wishes with it–negative interest rates, seizure during a crisis etc.

Of course, if you have enough to warrant an offshore bank account, you can still avoid prying eyes, including the tax office, government etc.

3 Likes

Could that be precisely the reason CHOICE should be involved? the seemingly automatic assumption that what some people consider large cash transactions are a criminal matter? Consumers being treated like criminals could be considered core business :wink: After the exposure banks have had, it beggars belief that cash would get more treatment - I’ve known of many people who stashed ‘the foldable’ at home, to the tune of many tens of thousands - personally I’ve done a couple of 10k+ cash deals over the last few years, for completely legitimate reasons - in one case the person who banked it was told ‘this amount is reportable’ - ‘go your hardest’ was the reply.

5 Likes

I agree.

It’s one thing to mandate that cash transactions over a certain threshold should be reported. Quite a different matter to treat them as a criminal offence. This restricts our rights as consumers in an unprecedented and worrying way.

1 Like

The period they allowed for formal discussion/remarks/submissions has closed, so no chance now for further formal “on the record” participation. CHOICE would only now have their informal channels to lobby for any changes if they perceived that any needed to be made.

However if you have $50,000 or more in an offshore bank account then you are supposed to declare that on your tax return - so not exactly avoiding any prying eyes.

If it’s just sitting in an offshore bank account then it isn’t subject to this legislation, as a) it currently is supposed only to apply when you pay it to a business for goods or services and b) it is only applicable to cash anyway.

Is “enough to warrant an offshore bank account” less than $50k?

3 Likes

The cash transaction Bill is another step promoted by the International Monetary Fund. Very left wing, The first major step took place last year when a Bill went through both the house and the senate in a matter of days. That Bill was the bail in legislation which made everyday private depositors and self managed super fund cash deposits the first available source to bail out a bank in trouble. So depositors get hit and not the regulators ,the govt or Bank management The deposit guarantee scheme is not in force and would probably be activated after your money is gone with the bail in law already active.

The cash transaction Bill has little to do with money laundering. It is the start of forcing all transactions to be done through the banks so you as a depositor can be hit with negative interest rates and also wealth tax, plus any fee the bank wants for the transaction. Of course if there is no cash, you cannot avoid the bail in process by having your funds outside the banking system. If the gov. does allow cash to remain in circulation , the IMF has also proposed that cash would have an exchange rate at a lower value than your digital funds in the bank so effectively you would not avoid the impact of negative interest on your bank funds.

I believe this is one of greatest risks to our basic freedoms far surpassing our modified free speech and political correctness. If you feel you are responsible for the financial mess globally and locally, then do nothing because you are going to pay. If you wish to remain free to buy and sell as a consumer or producer, you had better make yourself heard fast.

3 Likes

I don’t know that it is “left wing” as it was done but what some term a “right wing” government. If you go far enough out on any side then each seeks control of it’s populace. What could be termed fascist, communist, plutocracy, dictatorship, corporate capitalism, sovereignty and so on all may have the desire for absolute control and oversight.

1 Like

I understand. The last vehicle we sold (over the $10K proposed limit) was a strictly cash sale.

We learnt the hard way that a bank cheque isn’t wortht the paper it is written on. When it happened to us, I found out from the bank that it only indicates that the person had the money in their account at the time the cheque was written. The money can be withdrawn as soon as the bank cheque is written, leaving nothing in the account. The cheque is then worthless and the goods are gone with the buyer.

Personal cheques are just as useless, and most buyers would be reluctant to transfer funds without being there at the time to receive title for the goods (eg a private vehicle purchase)

2 Likes

Certainly needs more clarity?

It is not our experience when paying by bank cheque for a vehicle, or with solicitors and property transactions. The funds were debited from our account when the bank cheque was drawn. They were transferred to the bank to the value of the cheque.

Banks do have procedures for putting a halt on a bank cheque. A more complex situation.

Although NAB has this to say which suggests the bank will honour a bank cheque presented if it is rightfully acquired, whether or not NAB has been paid for the bank cheque by the customer.

3 Likes

Whenever we have had CBA bank cheques issued over the decades, the funds have always been immediately withdrawn from our accounts.

3 Likes

If I understand it correctly, the bank did a ‘notional’ debit straight away, but the funds were not actually withdrawn till the batch processing was done overnight. This leaves a window of time for the funds to be withdrawn before the overnight batch processing. The bank’s customer would of course get an ‘insufficient funds’ notice and fee, but that is all.

1 Like