To be honest, I was speaking about this solely from an "inside the bank" perspective, not considering the 100+ multiagency task forces.

There are people who say the banking agency is overregulated. Those are mostly people who work in banks or for banks, like lobbyists, and complain about every new regulation that comes their way because to a bank, less regulation is good. It means lower overhead and lower oversight.

There are people who say the banking agency is under regulated and/or that regulation is a good thing. I'm one of those. Of course, without regulations, I wouldn't have a job, so maybe I'm biased, but I'd prefer that there be oversight into banking activities.

Clearly, what has happened to these consumers is wrong. I think it's funny, though, that the NYT title is about "law letting IRS seize money on suspicion" and in the article it states that:

On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice

And to be fair? We don't search people's houses only after they've been proven guilty, or at least indicted for a crime.

What the IRS is facing is that if people who are really money launderers get notified that they are being investigated, without the IRS seizing their money, the money launderers are just going to take all that money and get the fuck out. I'm sure there is some sort of middle ground between presumption of innocence and premature seizing of assets, but I'm pretty sure that middle ground is going to prevent justice when it comes to money launderers. If a money launderer has any whiff that the IRS or another agency is looking into their shiz, the smartest thing they can do is take the money out in cash and disappear.

This is wrong - by which I mean morally wrong, not an incorrect statement of facts:

Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.

The following is bullshit and ignorant people who don't know what they're talking about: (and it's worth noting that the woman contradicts herself in these statements, claiming not to know about the requirement, but also claiming to know that keeping deposits under a certain amount "reduces paperwork" - what the fuq you think that paperwork is for, honey? For fun? Banks don't do it for their health. If a bank is requiring paperwork, 9 out of 10 chances are it's for a regulatory agency of some sort)

Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement and that for decades, she thought she had been doing everyone a favor. “My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork,” she said. “I didn’t actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.”

This bank teller is stupid and wrong. Don't ask tellers about how to avoid/be compliant with federal regulations. Tellers know how to do their job and hopefully stay in line with regs. The job of the teller does NOT require federal regulatory awareness and certainly not across the board.

he worried that when he deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money again. So he asked the bank teller what to do.

“She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’”