"Not everything that has been purchased with cash is a scheme," this is the cry of one of the commentary by Seth Kaplowitz as was written in Fortune Magazine online regarding the real estate deals allegedly bought by laundered money.
He posed some questions regarding the feds going after those people who have made some cash purchases in buying a house particularly in a luxury places in Miami and New York area. The new rule states that whosoever made purchases of these places should be disclosed. With this, he made questioning statement as the latest report has made mention on the new rules that are being set. "Are they even constitutional?" Since the US Supreme Court includes the right to privacy in their constitution.
He thinks that there is an argument regarding the violation of the fourth amendment. He also expressed an analogy about private individuals who decides to keep a low profile when buying their real estate purchases. What if these people are just simple private individuals who can afford such luxury and with that, they would rather choose to buy and own their home free and clear, not having to deal with institutional financing? What if they would just rather keep their business to themselves? Would it be right for the government to snoop into the private lives of individuals who acquired their assets by honest means? Should the government simply presume that all these individuals who bought luxury houses are guilty of laundering unless they have been proven innocent after all the investigation done?
The comment Kaplowitz made is something to think about, per verbatim he said, "The government seems to be on a fishing expedition in an effort to first see if any of the transactions above $3 million in Manhattan and above $1 million in Miami were consummated with illegally laundered money. If so, they will then prosecute the individuals and companies involved in the scheme, but what about the transactions that were not? Isn't there a basic right of privacy? "
