Is allowed to pay a cartel member's 7 million dollar bail in dirty cash with no questions asked

In a real first world country like Australia the money they set for bail has to have been in your bank account for months, and if you deposited $7 million into your bank you would get a visit by the government to explain the source of the money

>he doesn't exist
>Lalo fled the country

>immediately killed by Gus/mike after crossing the border

Imagine the kino

You're just assuming no one questions him. We already see in the episode preview that awkward, nervous lawyer tell Jimmy he's going to have to change his name again.

Nobody investigates deposits. They investigate withdrawals. 7 million dollar deposits are chump change for a TON of business accounts.

He's white, so he gets a pass.
Don't worry, our shit ass "justice" system already makes assumptions like that on black people.

>how can you show up with $7 million and not have to provide the source of said money?
Wait, so you think it should go like this

>Judge: "$7 million bail"
>Guy pays $7 million in bail
>Judge: Wait, where did you get $7 million? You're under arrest!
Then why set bail at all?

And yes, the IRS is legally notified by a CTR with every cash transaction over $10,000.

Realistically, the lawyer wouldn't be the one who brought the money in. It would be Lalo's family, or something.

But, yeah, Jimmy/Saul would have the CTR filed in his name, because he's the actual person who is transferring the cash.

Your comment is vague, and probably false. It's not illegal to carry around large sums of cash. Nor is mere possession of large amounts of cash valid pretext for civil forfeiture - theoretically.

Rightfully so. A black man with 7 million dollars is indeed suspicious.

You children do know you only pay a 10th of the posted bail right?
The other 90% of the bail is held over whoever bonded you out, be it a parent, friend, or bondsman. If you try to skip town on a bondsman then they send bounty hunters after you.

Exactly. I'm also Australian and we'd never allow cash bail because it's so easily corruptable. But I guess in a shithole like America money trumps justice

They did such a great job with casting Lalo the actor fits the character perfectly

The judge said "cash only" in the previous episode.

>I'm also Australian and we'd never allow cash bail because it's so easily corruptable
Right, because giving the government your cash, and letting them decide whether to return it is so "corruptible".

Unless he said cash only bail, it doesn't matter. They can still be bonded out.

>episode not even out yet
>people assuming the remaining two episodes will involve this transaction going perfectly smoothly, as Jimmy shows up and slaps down $7,000,000 cash in his shitty dollar-store t-shirt, sunburnt face, cracked skin, and no ability to account for the whereabouts of his car

>Then why set bail at all?
>Judge: Wait, where did you get $7 million? You're under arrest!
so they can get additional charges on whatever they can make up related to the money? that presenting the cash allows them a line of inquiry, like a chance to see if it's known dirty money? idk the law but that seems obvious. maybe they can't justify holding him without bail so they had to set it.

He said "cash only bail". Which is what I just said, you retarded child, who apparently doesn't understand context.

You did not. You said cash only. If a judge says bail will be set at 7 million cash only, they can still be bonded out. You clearly don't understand how any of this works and that's why you are in here asking stupid fucking questions.

>Nobody investigates deposits
Yes they do, the U.S. and Australia has laws on large deposits and withdrawals because of things like terrorism
Bond is rare in Australia and is set at a low amount unless it's a case that the media is hyping up like a cold case murder, usually if it's a serious crime like murder you won't get bail, if it's grievous bodily harm charge it will depend on the damage inflicted and previous criminal history

They set bail at $7 million because his crime was very serious - taking a human life is very, very roughly equivalent to $7 million dollars. (valuing human life is complicated and somewhat morally dubious, but most reasonable estimates tend to be somewhere around 5 or 10 million)

>so they can get additional charges on whatever they can make up related to the money?
Courts are not supposed to "bait" or "trick" people. That would undermine faith in our legal system.

Should the judge also lie about the 5th amendment, in order to pressure someone into confessing? Obviously not.

>maybe they can't justify holding him without bail so they had to set it
No. The $7 million was a pretty reasonable number. It's a massive cost if he tries to skip out on a serious crime.

the corrupt part is cash bail doesn't take into account the severity of the crime and the only thing that matters is whether you have enough cash. Unlike Australia, your overcrowded jails are filled with people accused of minor charges who could may well be innocent but still end up doing years because they can't pass bail

No one would ever have to pay $7 million to get bail in Australia, if a crime were deemed so serious they would have to pay that amount they wouldn't get bail to start with, your system seems to only benefit the wealthy, which is why you have private prisons you can pay to stay at where you get cable tv and your own cell

>You did not. You said cash only
Context, dipshit.

>If a judge says bail will be set at 7 million cash only, they can still be bonded out.
No, it does not mean that.

Try googling the term "cash only bail". It means you have to pay cash.

>You clearly don't understand how any of this works and that's why you are in here asking stupid fucking questions.
I didn't ask any questions, retard.

>if a crime were deemed so serious they would have to pay that amount they wouldn't get bail to start with
Ok. That doesn't function very differently from our system. Most people who get $7 million bail, don't ever pay it. And it's also pretty common for judges to just not give someone bail, instead of giving a high figure.

>, your system seems to only benefit the wealthy,
Go away, reddit.

>which is why you have private prisons you can pay to stay at where you get cable tv and your own cell
Sure is reddit in here.

Oath mate. There's point trying to reason with an ignorant American who can't see his justice system is for-profit just like his health system.

>Civil forfeiture.
In this you are wrong, if you are carrying around a x0000 to a million and wearing anything other than a suit, driving anything other than a more $ than a house car you are suspect. And subject to seizure.

>Sure is Reddit in here
No shit? The show is pure Reddit. What did you expect?

>cash bail doesn't take into account the severity of the crime
WTF? All bail decisions are based on the severity of the crime + flight risk.
>your overcrowded jails are filled with people accused of minor charges who could may well be innocent but still end up doing years because they can't pass bail
Again, WTF? You obviously have no idea what you’re on about.
Are you LARPing as a bogan to make ausfags look bad, or are you really this stupid?

lmao I'd be seething too if being hospitalized for corona meant I'd owe tens of thousands in hospital bills. Now go work for $4/hr + tip to afford your next insurance payment

>cash bail doesn't take into account the severity of the crime
It literally does. Bail is set proportionally to the crime.

>Unlike Australia, your overcrowded jails are filled with people accused of minor charges who could may well be innocent but still end up doing years because they can't pass bail
None of this is true, except for the word "overcrowded".

1) People who get convicted of minor charges (e.g. drug possession of small quantities) rarely go to prison. They almost always get the charges dropped, or at worst, probation. Occasionally, they'll get 30 or 60 days in county, but that's uncommon.

2) Nobody spends "years" in jail. If they got a long sentence, they'd go to Prison.

3) Almost nobody gets convicted of "crimes they didn't commit".

>Ok. That doesn't function very differently from our system. Most people who get $7 million bail, don't ever pay it
Except for the wealthy, which is why I said the system only benefits the wealthy
>Go away, reddit.
Being impartial on the matter isn't reddit
>Sure is reddit in here.
No idea why you think people with money should have a different standard of justice

You say all this as if it isn't true for most t the world. I sat in county jail for 18 months one time because I couldnt pay $50,000 bail.

Please remember that you are dealing with this level of intelligence when arguing with bcs detractors

Attached: 1586239240240.jpg (1080x1375, 501.64K)

>Land of the free

Attached: 1583276071634.jpg (1080x1120, 376.77K)

>if you are carrying around a x0000 to a million and wearing anything other than a suit, driving anything other than a more $ than a house car you are suspect.
> And subject to seizure.
Suspect? Sure? Seized assets? No.

The law literally says that mere possession of cash isn't a pretext for civil forfeiture. Potentially, cops can get "creative", and invent stuff. E.g. you smell like Marijuana, or claim that you said something that you didn't.

And they might be more inclined to do that, if they think you don't look rich. But that requires police who are willing to outright lie - certainly not unlikely, but most cops are not constantly inventing lies. (Especially since a lot of stuff is documented by body cameras, and such).

Cash bail and having bondsmen is uniquely an American thing, other nations don't set bond for people at $7 million because at that point they shouldn't get bail

You do realize it's in private prisons interest to keep people incarcerated right? And the problem is exacerbated by cash bail existing. Face it user, your country is broken

>The law says
It doesn't matter what the law says. Reality says they will take it and they will. Because who the fuck is going to stop them? They are the law. They just took all your money. You going to go hire a lawyer now? It's happens all the fucking time.

>Except for the wealthy, which is why I said the system only benefits the wealthy
Well, yeah, the wealthy have an additional option, I suppose. Of course, it's a rather weak benefit - they have to put up $7 million, and if they're guilty they're still going to get roughly the same total amount of time in prison.

(Time served prior to conviction counts toward the sentence in the US - I'd assume it's the same in Aussie land).

>No idea why you think people with money should have a different standard of justice
You realize that before convicting someone, we aren't trying to punish them, right? It's not a matter of "justice".

The only reason we imprison people before conviction is flight risk, and bail is used as a deterrent against flight risk. I'd hope that Australia is the same way.

>Mandrel Stuart was not charged with a crime and there was no evidence of illegal activity but police seized his money because they assumed it was drug-related

washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/08/they-fought-the-law-who-won/

Are you the same guy I was responding to?

Because you didn't seem to understand anything about the US' legal system. Which means your criticisms are just stupid reddit talking points.

>Reality says they will take it and they will. Because who the fuck is going to stop them? They are the law.
You don't know how police work. They aren't "the law". They're subject to certain procedures.

If they illegally take your money, they'll get prosecuted for grand theft. If they take your money via civil forfeiture, they need a valid reason.

>You realize that before convicting someone, we aren't trying to punish them, right? It's not a matter of "justice".
You do know that the private prisons that you pay to stay at which have cable tv you serve in after you've been convicted right?

latimes.com/projects/la-me-pay-to-stay-jails/

Based Aussie bro, you can't reason with an American in denial of their low quality of life

You're an idiot who has no concept of reality. You act like the police answer to someone other than themselves.
>Police take your money under civil forfeiture
>Call 911
>Help! The police took my money! This is grand theft!
>Wow sir! We will send someone out there right away!

yeah its just a bribe, nobody expects anyone who can pay to stay around
effectively 'pay up and get out the country'

See Police in the U.S. regularly steal peoples money and face no repercussions let alone criminal charges, people have to spend thousands just to get their own money back, the police can even take your house even if you weren't the person committing the crime

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Seizures_of_real_estate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Traffic_stops

What's your point?

BTW, the article is fake news It starts by saying

>Mandrel Stuart was not charged with a crime and there was no evidence of illegal activity but police seized his money because they assumed it was drug-related

And then later says

>Mandrel Stuart was pulled over in Virginia. The police confiscated $17,550 after finding a tiny amount of residue of marijuana in a bag.

Yeah, it's a weak justification.

But the dude had drugs on him. It wasn't seized without any reason. If the police wanted to argue that he was a drug dealer, or something, they had SOMETHING to go on. Even if it's weak.

>a $7 million cash purchase

I think it is very different buddie

t. bootlicker

There's lots of other examples such as
>Tan Nguyen. In 2008, a federal judge ordered $50,000 returned to a man after police seized the money during a traffic stop in Nebraska, after reviewing a recording of the seizure in which a sheriff's deputy suggested that we "take his money and, um, count it as a drug seizure".
>Tan Nguyen's $50,000 was confiscated by police during a traffic stop, and the county agreed to return the funds after a legal challenge

wsj.com/articles/no-headline-available-1395004122?tesla=y

It's clear the police in the U.S. blatantly rob people and they have to pay thousands for a solicitor just to get it back, these officers have never faced criminal charges because it's a common procedure that isn't looked down upon

>Have marijuana residue
>Cops can take nearly $20,000 from you
OOOOOH SAY CAN YOU SEEEEEEEEE

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

Is cable TV bad? Are we supposed to limit prisoners to no TV? Or just broadcast TV?

And "private prison that you pay to stay at" don't exist, so far as I'm aware. I've heard of something like that for jails, in certain states (e.g. Cali) . No prisons.

The judge never expected him to pay the $7 million. He intentionally set it high so the defendant would have his right to bail preserved but unattainable

t. still calls 911 when he's in trouble

civil forfeiture =/= "steal"

>returned

who sets the limit on what needs to be investigated
its already set at $10,000 when you deposit cash