So when someone at the IRS with no oversight does something utterly evil and totally illegal for whatever reason they had and your business gets ruined as a result, you are bankrupted and you could have easily prevented it all because any judge would have seen it your way but you didn't get to take it to a judge because it was secret, you're ok with this?
To prevent you from maybe doing something that is presumably already illegal in the future.
Of course if the something isn't illegal so the secrecy is required to prevent you from taking wholly legal actions then that's also ok?
Why is there /any/ need for /any/ secrecy here at all?
> when someone at the IRS with no oversight does something utterly evil and totally illegal for whatever reason they had and your business gets ruined as a result, you are bankrupted
From a subpoena? How? Whom? Is the concern the bank will run out of resources with which to respond to court orders?
You know what can be ruinous? A flippantly-filed warrant.
> prevent you from maybe doing something that is presumably already illegal in the future
What? A suspected tax dodge's lawyers bank was asked to provide accounts from or to which the suspect wired money. This wasn't a fishing expedition; the IRS convinced a judge to grant the subpoena. They asked the bank for records, then the bank let the lawyers know it complied.
This wasn't in pursuit of a future crime. The IRS had already found Polselli liable. He had been noticed of this liability. Then they went to collect.
The future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy. If that asset movement were not possible there's no need of secrecy. If the asset movement is not a crime then it's even worse.
> future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy
This is sort of like saying cops wear bulletproof vests to prevent the future crime of their murder. Or that we put bars on jail cells to prevent the future crime of escaping prison. Or that we lock doors to prevent the future crime of theft.
Like, sure. That too. But there’s a more-obvious motivation: preventing the behaviour per se.
To prevent you from maybe doing something that is presumably already illegal in the future.
Of course if the something isn't illegal so the secrecy is required to prevent you from taking wholly legal actions then that's also ok?
Why is there /any/ need for /any/ secrecy here at all?