Safety Deposit box seizure

sumrtym

Sorry if this has already been posted, didn't see it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-09/fbi-beverly-hills-safe-deposit-boxes-forfeiture-cash-jewelry?_amp=true

tincup

Looks like I can't see your article without subscribing...

sumrtym

Wierd. I'm not subscribed and it came right up.

tincup

For some reason.... I can now access it. Earlier.... no way!

As for the article, very sobbering. Safety deposit boxes are NOT safe from seizures and Forfeiture laws.

CoinHoarder

If you don’t hold it, you don’t own it.

Kliao

@tincup said:

Safety deposit boxes are NOT safe from seizures and Forfeiture laws.

I also read somewhere else that insurance for safety deposit boxes do not cover losses from seizures.

derryb

@CoinHoarder said:
If you don’t hold it, you don’t own it.

Asset forfeiture law disagrees. Ask any of the untold number of highway travelers who have had their pockets picked clean by law enforcement.

taxmad

He does tend to prattle on, but he has some good information on the story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy3623YRsMk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4OVzbg5CM0

ricko

SDB's have been seized, robbed and destroyed by fire. Yes, they provide a sense of security for those that use them. I prefer my own security... several layers. There is an abundance of guidance to secure your home and possessions available online or in books. Is anything 100%? Probably not. However, I like to control my environment, and protect my family and possessions. When something is in a remote locale, I then depend on others. Not for me.
Cheers, RickO

TwoSides2aCoin

I put the same thing in my safe deposit box that Santa put in my stocking. Coal.

Baley

While, indeed, nothing is 100% safe, I consider the risk of loss of contents by seizure or any other cause from my SDB to be negligible. Certainly lower than keeping the coins anywhere else.

And if they did disappear, while not fun, it wouldn't impact my quality life except psychologically.

cohodk

Sounds like the FBI had good reason to seize those boxes from a non-bank entity.

derryb

With existing asset forfeiture laws being what they are only a fool would stash their goods in such a high profile place.

Lesson for all: Do not store your legally obtained goods anywhere near a place that might store illegally obtained goods.

derryb

@cohodk said:
Sounds like the FBI had good reason to seize those boxes from a non-bank entity.

A non bank entity and its customers should have the same legal protection as does a bank entity when it comes to providing secure storage to the public. Do you think the FBI would raid/confiscate all of the boxes in a bank if one or two of them were suspected of being criminal or if the bank manager was suspected of criminal conduct? Hell, most large banks have been convicted of criminal conduct in one form or another.

The only reason it's hands off for search and seizure of a bank's secure storage is because of the public outcry it would create. Imagine if the seizure under discussion had occurred at a Chase bank branch.

sumrtym

@cohodk said:
Sounds like the FBI had good reason to seize those boxes from a non-bank entity.

Except the warrant made clear they could not search and seize the contents of the boxes, only the boxes themselves.

cohodk

@derryb said:
Lesson for all: Do not store your legally obtained goods anywhere near a place that might store illegally obtained goods.

So should one store illegally obtained goods in a place that might store legally obtained goods?

cohodk

@sumrtym said:

@cohodk said:
Sounds like the FBI had good reason to seize those boxes from a non-bank entity.

Except the warrant made clear they could not search and seize the contents of the boxes, only the boxes themselves.

So if a warrant is obtained to seize a vehicle suspected to have been used in a robbery, any guns and cash and drugs found within should be returned to the owner of the vehicle, no questions asked? You know, because, asking questions is stupid. 😉

taxmad

@cohodk said:

@sumrtym said:

@cohodk said:
Sounds like the FBI had good reason to seize those boxes from a non-bank entity.

Except the warrant made clear they could not search and seize the contents of the boxes, only the boxes themselves.

So if a warrant is obtained to seize a vehicle suspected to have been used in a robbery, any guns and cash and drugs found within should be returned to the owner of the vehicle, no questions asked? You know, because, asking questions is stupid. 😉

Apparently so would spending 5 minutes reading about the case...

jmski52

You know, because, asking questions is stupid. 😉

Isn't that exactly what you implied about my questions, less than a week ago? Sorry for the question.

cohodk

.

@jmski52 said:
You know, because, asking questions is stupid. 😉

Isn't that exactly what you implied about my questions, less than a week ago? Sorry for the question.

Ask derryb. Hes the one who doesn't like questions.

derryb

nothing wrong with questions, except the ones that are meant to distract from the discussion. lol

answering a question with another question is meaningless. It's like commenting on a link that you didn't even bother to read.

metalmeister

I saw that too. That's bad for the regular Joe. Loses faith in the "system"

mapleman

@sumrtym said:

@cohodk said:
Sounds like the FBI had good reason to seize those boxes from a non-bank entity.

Except the warrant made clear they could not search and seize the contents of the boxes, only the boxes themselves.

Actually I believe the warrant only covered the frames of the box storage area and specifically excluded the boxes and the contents. I don't have access to the link right now but it was covered in detail by Steve Lehto of lehtos law on utube. Looks like the Fbi has some splainin to do and several lawsuits have been filed.

Timbuk3

Crazy !!! 😩