> "...interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder."
Is that asset movement or hiding illegal? Hasn't happened yet either way.
A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent.
A: No, it is not illegal. Then what the actual fudge? You might do something /legal/ so we'll stop you by doing it in secret? Huh?
The problem is someone might or might not move assets. The suggested solution of secrecy is just _wrong_ on every level. Get some kind of court order saying assets cannot be moved. Change the law. Do whatever. The "do it in secret" answer is just wrong and /will/ be abused.
> A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent.
They'd have to prove mens rea, and then get a jury to throw you in jail. Over a fricking collection. Do collections agencies have to give you notice that they're going to scout out your street in order to repo your car? No? Then why should the IRS have to give you notice that they're going to scout out your bank in order to repo your assets?
Yeah it's really annoying for the government officials to have to prove you're a criminal before treating you like one. Imagine founding a nation where these employees had to actually do that?
When collection agencies perform secret searches of your property, that's a crime! Call the police.
What happens in public is different to what the government or anyone else can legally do to find out about what you do and have in private? Search warrants exist based on that distinction. Crazy I know but true!
You can be treated like a criminal prior to being found guilty. This is called being arrested, being held pending bail, or, as you yourself mention, a search warrant.
> When collection agencies perform secret searches of your property, that's a crime!
Banking records are not your property. They are the property of the bank. Neither are Google Map photos.
That's a new one, you have no right to privacy for your banking records. Obviously you don't actually believe that when seeing it written out.
This is a change in what conduct is considered legal. Didn't used to be, now found that it is. You might like to ponder why it was considered not legal for the IRS for such a long, long time. And what changed to push it this direction. Best to you.
Due process is a thing worth defending. I think that's still a popular opinion. There are consequences for government agents if the lie to get a warrant, make arrests without probable cause and NONE of that happens in secret which is the WHOLE point here. All of it.
Lawyers have specific duties as officers of the court. It would have been better had this been determined based on that.
Based on this particular case I assume the IRS and law enforcement would be barred from taking any action against the third parties based on material discovered in their bank accounts, as they only had the right to search said bank accounts for material pertinent to the second party.
As long as this would be held to be true (should it ever come up in a future case), due process, and the 4th amendment, would be protected.
Is that asset movement or hiding illegal? Hasn't happened yet either way.
A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent.
A: No, it is not illegal. Then what the actual fudge? You might do something /legal/ so we'll stop you by doing it in secret? Huh?
The problem is someone might or might not move assets. The suggested solution of secrecy is just _wrong_ on every level. Get some kind of court order saying assets cannot be moved. Change the law. Do whatever. The "do it in secret" answer is just wrong and /will/ be abused.