Access to currency when traveling abroad 4

[Sparweb]

I was recently traveling in China.
I didn't give much thought to currency before leaving; not enough it turned out. I planned to stop at a currency exchange desk once landing at the airport, get some Reminbi's, and pick up a SIM card for my phone. I also had loaded Wechat app on my phone, and located a couple of banks in the vicinity of my lodgings (Changsha city).
The plan started to break down when the price for the SIM card turned out to be rather inflated at the airport, however I needed the phone to work to get in touch with my ride from the airport. So that used up most of the RMB cash supply I had just changed. I didn't take this too seriously, expecting to top up at a bank or an ATM, once I got settled.

No luck. Among the things attempted, which failed:
[ul][li]Accessing my bank at either the China Bank of Communications or Bank of China branches,[/li]
[li]Accessing my bank at any ATM,[/li]
[li]Accessing my credit card using an ATM,[/li]
[li]Phoning my credit card company (in the middle of the night),[/li]
[li]Transferring money from my credit card into Wechat (but I could enter the card data),[/li]
[li]Using credit cards at point-of-sale[/li]
[/ul]
The only solution that finally worked was to have a friend transfer money to me, and that money already had to be RMB.
I could guess that anti-laundering laws would prevent currency conversion in the Wechat phone app, so I didn't even bother asking my friends with north american currency to transfer money to me, because it would also be a dead end.

So now that I'm back and I've paid back all my friends, clearly I need to think that through much better next time. Any recommendations?
This kind of travel may become more frequent for me and my co-workers, so I'm thinking of asking the company to open a bank account in China for us to use. Settling the balance when several of us are using the account at once will not be easy, but I've already noticed that they are all pretty diligent with receipts. Anyone expect any problems with that idea?


No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[TenPenny]

"Surely that is hyperbole, IRstuff. Do you have any case studies to back that up? Not just something from Huffington Post, please. "

There was a case in New Brunswick Canada of a guy having his cash seized because the RCMP decided he must have been committing a crime, no charges were ever laid, and the courts ruled the Province could keep the money.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/attorney-general-proceeds-of-crime-1.4017425

So, no, it's not hyperbole.

 

[TenPenny]

Back to the China money topic: when I was in China the first time, which was for an adoption, we had to bring cash, US funds, in $20 and $50 bills. It was several thousand dollars. We had ours in a money belt; in fact, we had two money belts, each with enough cash, in case one got lost or stolen. One morning at breakfast, I suddenly realized I had left my money belt on the bed when we went down to eat; I panicked, and ran up to the room; housekeeping had already been in there. There was my money belt, carefully placed on the pillow of the freshly made bed, with nothing missing at all.

 

[hokie66]

The case TenPenny linked, in my opinion, is a good example of why we should have this type of law. It was decided in court that the appropriate penalty was forfeiture of the money. That's a good deterrent. And I still think IRstuff's statement was hyperbole.

 

[Sparweb]

I was all prepared to write in defense of the "presumption of innocence", but I read the article first. Now I'm more on the side of the judge's ruling not to return the cash. It would help if the Mounties had tracked down the supposed friend selling the house, and the casino where some of the cash came from, to attempt to establish any truth to Gorman's story. However that evidence isn't there (or wasn't admitted - not likely to be credible evidence) or maybe the journalist just didn't bother to include this part of the testimony.

Anyway...
I never would want to carry more than about 1000 USD (or equivalent in any other currency) at any time, whether traveling or not. The age of cash is nearly over, and it's gone so far that paying cash can undermine you credibility, not bolster it. If I'm buying a car, I will bring a bank draft so that the seller can trust the money. If the seller can't cope with a bank, it's not a seller I want to do business with. I probably bring this attitude with me if I travel, whether it suits the environment or not, but I think it does, as long as I adapt to the technology in use. There are ATM's everywhere in China, but most look pretty sketchy. I noticed a non-verbal "code" most people use when they pay for things using the WeChat barcode on their mobile phones, and endeavored to use it correctly myself. Doing business has non-verbal and unsaid components in any transaction, in any culture. Bending the rules can easily make the other party uneasy. Opening a fat wad of bills is DEFINITELY NOT an image I want to project at any time.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[IRstuff]

Not sure where you think there was hyperbole:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tm_term=.523d3686104c&wpisrc=nl_evening&wpm=1

No conviction is required, because the burden of proof is pretty much on hearsay, aside from the dubious use of drug and explosive sniffing dogs, since it's well known that almost all US currency has trace amounts of both. Note that this is the only case where you have to PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, rather than the government proving the opposite, which flies in the face of two centuries of presumption of innocence.

Given that all police departments at any level are strapped for cash, there's a huge conflict of interest in having the same people decide whether to seize assets. Note that it's not limited to money; if you have a shiny new car, etc., you could still potentially get it seized.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hokie66]

"Someone seizes your property and simply fills out a form..." Sounds like alarmism, exaggeration, hyperbole, whatever you want to call it. Is "someone" a law enforcement officer, a civilian, or who?

 

[IRstuff]

Does that even matter, even if it is a LEO? Our constitution was written to provide specific guarantees against arbitrary search and seizure. Moreover, we have literally dozens of different LEO organizations in the government, anything from the Forest Service, to the IRS, to the city beat cops, all with armed officers.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[TenPenny]

"The case TenPenny linked, in my opinion, is a good example of why we should have this type of law. It was decided in court that the appropriate penalty was forfeiture of the money. That's a good deterrent. And I still think IRstuff's statement was hyperbole. "

The appropriate penalty for what, exactly? There were no charges.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Blatant violation of 4th amendment. I don't know that there is even room for argument of this. Civil forfeiture laws as they are currently configured offer little to no due process, and presumes guilt instead of innocence. It's just flat out wrong. The scary part is that legislation that allowed this was even passed in the first place, and then allowed to stand and remain in force for as long as it has. It does not bode well for other rights, liberties, and freedoms, whether or not you agree with them or not.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[JedClampett]

As with most laws, it started out with good intentions. It was promoted as an anti drug law. "Take the pushers fancy cars and money, that'll show them! And we'll give the money to the police to find more of these creeps!" But of course, it couldn't be written as strictly an anti drug law, so it bled into other violations.
It's really hard to believe that the cases that are used as examples of abuse are as cut and dried as he "defendant" says, but if they are, the police should be shamed into giving back the money. Isn't there a basic sense of fairness with these people?

 

[hokie66]

I think Jed has hit on the key issue. The reported cases have been "reported".

 

[dgallup]

This is being fought in the Supreme Court right now. It is a big deal even if you think it's a non-issue.

The Supreme Court could limit the travesty of civil asset forfeiture

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.