over $5000 ID requeriments

dragafem

dragafem

Well-Known Member
Silver Stacker
I asked one of the reputable dealer about the above and I was told bullion dealers only have to report over $10000 and if its in cash.so Im just wondering what is this over $5000 ID thing I hear all the time. is it all bullcrap and only info collection?

The dealer I talked to is in this business over 35 years so they should know.
 
I've never given ID to any dealer for $5k-$10k transactions except for the Perth Mint when ordering from Syd. Is the $5k requirement a new thing?
 
I remember buying a while back and there was a $10,000 figure that was used for some sort of regulation?
 
Bullion Baron said:
House said:
Is the $5k requirement a new thing?
Click to expand...
Nope: http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-5171-bullionmark-austrac-5000-threshold-limit.html

The Act requiring it originates in 2006, but I don't recall it being a thing when I first started buying bullion in 2008 (seemed to kick in a year or two after that). I think there was either an amendment to the legislation or stricter enforcement/communication of it to bullion dealers around that 2009/2010 period.
Click to expand...

Or maybe that dealer tax scam back in 2014 brought it to the fore?
 
betterlatethannever said:
Either way just buy $4,999.00 everyday = $34,993.00 by weeks end no big deal :P
Click to expand...

Like banks, I'm pretty sure bullion dealers can report transactions they consider suspicious to the authorities, and I'm pretty sure such deliberate and blatant attempts at skirting the ID threshold would qualify.
 
Expect it to be more strictly enforced as authorities target drug dealers and perhaps even go lower.
I had an eBay transaction go 'funny' - he wouldn't pay proper postage, I wasn't sending it without postage being covered at cost, and the messaging back and forth was proving both irregular and intermittent.
After some web searching, I found that the fellow was in the process of being sentenced and off for an extended holiday at the governments expense.
I'm guessing he'll be looking for his silver when he gets out ....
In a year or two.
 
Currawong said:
betterlatethannever said:
Either way just buy $4,999.00 everyday = $34,993.00 by weeks end no big deal :P
Click to expand...

Like banks, I'm pretty sure bullion dealers can report transactions they consider suspicious to the authorities, and I'm pretty sure such deliberate and blatant attempts at skirting the ID threshold would qualify.
Click to expand...

and - NO! :)

This is exactly what I was told by - - - in central Sydney ;)
 
What a complete waste of time. Anyone actually laundering money will just make small orders most likely using fake/stolen IDs to get around this. Couple that with all the legal ways you can anonymously purchase money orders and setup mail boxes without ID and the act is pointless

On the $10,000 requirement, I don't remember if it was APMEX or Provident but I believe if you make a purchase or multiple purchases they'll report it if they're within a few days time. So four $2500 purchases will require them to report it to the government.
 
Currawong said:
betterlatethannever said:
Either way just buy $4,999.00 everyday = $34,993.00 by weeks end no big deal :P
Click to expand...

Like banks, I'm pretty sure bullion dealers can report transactions they consider suspicious to the authorities, and I'm pretty sure such deliberate and blatant attempts at skirting the ID threshold would qualify.
Click to expand...

They can report transactions for $50 if they think it looks suspicious because they are providing a "designated service".

7x $4999 is obviously a series of structured transactions (aka. smurfing) and would be suspicious.

Going to a bullion dealer and saying "I'd like to make a series of transactions for $4999 so I don't have to provide ID" would also be suspicious.

Going to a real estate agent and saying "I'd like to buy that apartment with the $800,000 in cash I have in this suitcase" is not, legally speaking, suspicious.
 
Big A.D. said:
Currawong said:
betterlatethannever said:
Either way just buy $4,999.00 everyday = $34,993.00 by weeks end no big deal :P
Click to expand...

Like banks, I'm pretty sure bullion dealers can report transactions they consider suspicious to the authorities, and I'm pretty sure such deliberate and blatant attempts at skirting the ID threshold would qualify.
Click to expand...

They can report transactions for $50 if they think it looks suspicious because they are providing a "designated service".

7x $4999 is obviously a series of structured transactions (aka. smurfing) and would be suspicious.

Going to a bullion dealer and saying "I'd like to make a series of transactions for $4999 so I don't have to provide ID" would also be suspicious.

Going to a real estate agent and saying "I'd like to buy that apartment with the $800,000 in cash I have in this suitcase" is not, legally speaking, suspicious.
Click to expand...

Why would you say anything other than - can I please buy a 50g Valcambi Gold Bar and a 1oz Gold Pamp Lady Fortuna Bar = $4713.66 and be on your way :P and then get your friend who is with you e.g. your wife to do the same.

Honestly how hard is it :/
 
betterlatethannever said:
Why would you say anything other than - can I please buy a 50g Valcambi Gold Bar and a 1oz Gold Pamp Lady Fortuna Bar = $4713.66 and be on your way :P and then get your friend who is with you e.g. your wife to do the same.

Honestly how hard is it :/
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Wife can drag down the limit of purchase in $......wawawahh. Better not to engage them in buying. I am speaking now for myself.

While, my friend Mr. X will never know i am buying PM in such amount. He might suspect and draw a lot of question regarding my stacking. I would rather be discreet or buy incremently in a longer period. I think, i will not lose so much in this manner. Patience is a virtue.
 
willrocks said:
betterlatethannever said:
Either way just buy $4,999.00 everyday = $34,993.00 by weeks end no big deal :P
Click to expand...

Be aware, what you're suggesting is called structuring and it's a criminal offence in Australia (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring).
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to prove that.
What if you genuinely could only afford to (or simply wanted to) buy say $4k every week? How can that be illegal?

From:
http://www.austrac.gov.au/threshold-transaction-reports-ttrs#structuring

'Structuring' is a money laundering technique involving the deliberate splitting of transactions into smaller amounts in order to avoid TTR requirements. It is an offence to conduct transactions designed to avoiding threshold transaction reporting requirements.
Click to expand...

I can't see how they could prosecute you even if you did it deliberately (say you had a moral objection to the policy), as long as you weren't trying to hide any income or do anything else illegal etc.
i.e. given the the tracking and subsequent policy is about "money laundering", surely they would have to prove you were actually laundering money?
Successfully prosecuting someone because they wanted to buy $4k worth a gold a week completely legally with no intention of money laundering or other illegal activity seems ludicrous.
 
SilverDJ said:
'Structuring' is a money laundering technique involving the deliberate splitting of transactions into smaller amounts in order to avoid TTR requirements. It is an offence to conduct transactions designed to avoiding threshold transaction reporting requirements.
Click to expand...

I can't see how they could prosecute you even if you did it deliberately (say you had a moral objection to the policy), as long as you weren't trying to hide any income or do anything else illegal etc.
i.e. given the the tracking and subsequent policy is about "money laundering", surely they would have to prove you were actually laundering money?
Successfully prosecuting someone because they wanted to buy $4k worth a gold a week completely legally with no intention of money laundering or other illegal activity seems ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The doing part isn't the issue, the intent is what matters.

The prosecution would have to prove that you had the mens rea - the "guilty mind" - in deliberately structuring your purchases to avoid them being reported. They would try to demonstrate that through other aspects of your behavior.
 
Big A.D. said:
The doing part isn't the issue, the intent is what matters.
The prosecution would have to prove that you had the mens rea - the "guilty mind" - in deliberately structuring your purchases to avoid them being reported. They would try to demonstrate that through other aspects of your behavior.
Click to expand...

Correct, they would have to prove you had intent to deceive, launder money etc.
But let take the hypothetical (which might actually typical among stackers here) that you had a moral objection to the reporting rule, or simply you didn't want to provide ID because, you know, it's none of their business, and you had no other intent to deceive, launder money, avoid taxes etc etc.
Could they still prosecute you for making the conscious decision to only buy $4k worth at time every week? I suspect they might have a hard time?
 
SilverDJ said:
Big A.D. said:
The doing part isn't the issue, the intent is what matters.
The prosecution would have to prove that you had the mens rea - the "guilty mind" - in deliberately structuring your purchases to avoid them being reported. They would try to demonstrate that through other aspects of your behavior.
Click to expand...

Correct, they would have to prove you had intent to deceive, launder money etc.
But let take the hypothetical (which might actually typical among stackers here) that you had a moral objection to the reporting rule, or simply you didn't want to provide ID because, you know, it's none of their business, and you had no other intent to deceive, launder money, avoid taxes etc etc.
Could they still prosecute you for making the conscious decision to only buy $4k worth at time every week? I suspect they might have a hard time?
Click to expand...

Well, your purchases are the dealer's business as a matter of course and AUSTRAC's business if you conduct them in such a way that the law says they need to be reported to AUSTRAC.

Your (hypothetical) moral objections don't factor into it one way or the other.

If you're not a drug dealer or working for an organized crime syndicate and your money is legit, AUSTRAC don't care about you. They'll record all your transactions anyway, but they don't care about you. Storing all the data is cheap, so they just do it on the off-chance something useful might be recorded about someone dodgy they might be interested in at some point in the future. There's some laws, they capture all the data within the purview of those laws and then they stick it in a database somewhere just in case.

The offence is trying to avoid the reporting requirements.

If you simply had an investment strategy that involved cost averaging your purchases out over a period of time to reduce price risk then you may, coincidentally, avoid the reporting requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top