Money, Morals, Ethics, and the Law

[BlackShanglan]

Having spent the day reading and posting on the "spirituality" thread, I found these two stories particularly interesting to run into in close conjunction. Each involves a large sum of money whose ownership is disputed. I'm curious about how people would see each. I've included brief excerpts from the stories, with the link to each full story above it:

http://www.local6.com/news/14228121/detail.html

SANFORD, Fla. -- What would you do if you found $100,000 in the attic of your house?

Bernard Salcedo, 26, of Sanford, reported the finding to police, who are now holding the money, and he is trying to get it back.

Salcedo was looking for a bad wire in his attic after the power went out when he found $100,000 in cash, starting a messy legal fight over who should get the cash.

<...>

Similar bundles of cash were found hidden in the home after Scott Quinn, a 37-year-old bail bondsman and gun dealer, was found stabbed to death in 2003.

Police returned the money to the victim's estranged wife, Lana Quinn, the widow's lawyer Michael Herring said.

<...>

Scott Quinn kept large amounts of cash because he frequently attended gun shows and made cash purchases as part of his business, Herring said.

He also said Salcedo had no claim to the money, but that his client would pay an undisclosed finder's fee.

Salcedo's attorney Eric Frommer insisted there was no way to prove the money belonged to Lana Quinn.

Would you fight for the money if you'd found it? If you were the estranged wife? If you had to decide which of the two the money should go to, how would you assign it?


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/immigrant.money/index.html

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- For 11 years, Pedro Zapeta, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, lived his version of the American dream in Stuart, Florida: washing dishes and living frugally to bring money back to his home country.

Pedro Zapeta, an illegal immigrant, managed to save $59,000 while working as a dishwasher for 11 years.

1 of 2 Two years ago, Zapeta was ready to return to Guatemala, so he carried a duffel bag filled with $59,000 -- all the cash he had scrimped and saved over the years -- to the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

But when Zapeta tried to go through airport security, an officer spotted the money in the bag and called U.S. customs officials.

"They asked me how much money I had," Zapeta recalled, speaking to CNN in Spanish.

He told the customs officials $59,000. At that point, U.S. customs seized his money, setting off a two-year struggle for Zapeta to get it back. Zapeta describes how he lost his money »

Zapeta, who speaks no English, said he didn't know he was running afoul of U.S. law by failing to declare he was carrying more than $10,000 with him. Anyone entering or leaving the country with more than $10,000 has to fill out a one-page form declaring the money to U.S. customs.

Should Mr. Zapeta have a right to his money? With or without taxes taken from it? Some or all of it?

I don't have answers in mind. I'm just curious to see what issues people weigh and what strikes them as the most important consideration in each case.

 

[S-Des]

Should Mr. Zapeta have a right to his money? With or without taxes taken from it? Some or all of it?

I don't have answers in mind. I'm just curious to see what issues people weigh and what strikes them as the most important consideration in each case.

I saw this story on the news last night (this morning). My gut reaction was how horrible and unfair it was. My next reaction was he came here illegally, worked illegally, didn't pay taxes, probably used some services that taxpayers have to pay for, then tried to take everything and go (he didn't even bother to learn English, just wanted to take his money and go). I find the two very difficult to resolve. He wants to go home and I certainly don't think his "crime" deserves any more punishment than sending him home. At the same time, as I'm struggling with my own IRS issues, I find it very hard to feel sorry for someone who tried to evade them, then bitches about getting caught.

I'd say take out regular taxes (which would probably be pretty low since I'm guessing he didn't make that in a year), get the information about his employers (in case they were using Mr. Zapeta and others like him to avoid taxes and labor laws), then send him home with the rest (no penalties or fines). It would be an act of good will, and probably be what's fair.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Would you fight for the money if you'd found it? If you were the estranged wife? If you had to decide which of the two the money should go to, how would you assign it?

If I had found it? No, I wouldn't have fought for it.
If I was the estranged wife, I would have probably let the guy have it--or at least split it with him.

Should Mr. Zapeta have a right to his money? With or without taxes taken from it? Some or all of it?

Of course he should have a right to his money. I don't care if he earned it "illegally" or not. As for taxes.. *sigh*... I suppose they have to take the taxes...

 

[3113]

I'd say take out regular taxes (which would probably be pretty low since I'm guessing he didn't make that in a year), get the information about his employers (in case they were using Mr. Zapeta and others like him to avoid taxes and labor laws), then send him home with the rest (no penalties or fines). It would be an act of good will, and probably be what's fair.

I'm in absolute agreement. He worked for the money, and so it shouldn't be taken entirely from him, but as S-Des said, there is a price to pay for living and earning money in this country. We all pay that price in taxes, and in obeying the laws; Zepeta's employers, especially, should not be allowed off the hook. To let any of them off the hook is to say that folk can use this country for their own (and their employers) ends, no matter what harm it does to the citizen of this country--like higher taxes or less jobs for those legally here.

It would be a bad precedent to set to just give him back the money without making him also pay the taxes, etc. that any person--a citizen or a person with a legal work permit--has to pay to work and live here.

 

[rgraham666]

Would you fight for the money if you'd found it? If you were the estranged wife? If you had to decide which of the two the money should go to, how would you assign it?

I wouldn't fight. It's only money and it's not as if I earned it. If I was the estranged wife, that would depend. If I had kids that needed looking after I'd probably keep it. $100,000 will almost pay for a decent university education.

I'd do the finder's fee thing though, say 10%.

Should Mr. Zapeta have a right to his money? With or without taxes taken from it? Some or all of it?

He has the right to his money. He earned it.

I would take the taxes off though.

Foolish of him to not check the rules first.

 

[S-Des]

He has the right to his money. He earned it.

I would take the taxes off though.

Foolish of him to not check the rules first.

What is sad for him is that the rules were clearly posted, but he didn't read or speak English, so he didn't know. If he had filled out the one page form, they would have let him go without question. He just tried to walk through the airport with $59,000 in cash, stuffed into a dufflebag. I can't even get a vibrator through the checkpoints, I'm not sure what he was thinking.

 

[Recidiva]

Having spent the day reading and posting on the "spirituality" thread, I found these two stories particularly interesting to run into in close conjunction. Each involves a large sum of money whose ownership is disputed. I'm curious about how people would see each. I've included brief excerpts from the stories, with the link to each full story above it:

http://www.local6.com/news/14228121/detail.html

Would you fight for the money if you'd found it? If you were the estranged wife? If you had to decide which of the two the money should go to, how would you assign it?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/immigrant.money/index.html

Should Mr. Zapeta have a right to his money? With or without taxes taken from it? Some or all of it?

I don't have answers in mind. I'm just curious to see what issues people weigh and what strikes them as the most important consideration in each case.

As to the first, about the money...I'm kinda in the finder's keepers camp if it's in your attic. Of course, you don't need to tell anybody you found it, don't deposit it all at once to a bank, and probably hold a bunch back in cash for an emergency fund. Maybe buy groceries with it for a few years. Seems prudent. I'd probably never admit I found it, would claim ignorance entirely if the subject came up, but my kids would have a more secure future. If someone came to claim it and I felt they deserved it, I'd probably give it to them. I've been lucky enough to have my lost wallet returned to me twice. Intact. Cash inside. When they were lost in Hollywood. So I believe in returning things to their owners...when they're labeled. If there's no clear ownership...it gets fuzzy for me if I can put it to good use myself.

As to the second, that's horrible. Give him his damned money.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I liked your response very much, S-Des. I tend to think the same (on the second case).

 

[S-Des]

As to the first, about the money...I'm kinda in the finder's keepers camp if it's in your attic. Of course, you don't need to tell anybody you found it, don't deposit it all at once to a bank, and probably hold a bunch back in cash for an emergency fund. Maybe buy groceries with it for a few years. Seems prudent. I'd probably never admit I found it, would claim ignorance entirely if the subject came up, but my kids would have a more secure future. If someone came to claim it and I felt they deserved it, I'd probably give it to them. I've been lucky enough to have my lost wallet returned to me twice. Intact. Cash inside. When they were lost in Hollywood. So I believe in returning things to their owners...when they're labeled. If there's no clear ownership...it gets fuzzy for me if I can put it to good use myself.

I'm too paranoid for that. So much money in an attic, it very likely could be from an illegal source. I'd spend far too much time obsessing about whether someone was going to come looking for it (either the owner or the Feds). *shudder*

 

[3113]

I'm too paranoid for that. So much money in an attic, it very likely could be from an illegal source. I'd spend far too much time obsessing about whether someone was going to come looking for it (either the owner or the Feds). *shudder*

Agreed again. If it was a few hundred or even a few thousand, that'd be different. In that case you could probably say someone who may have passed on left it in the attic and it's "finders keepers." But $100,000? That much money, in cash, is something to worry about. That's possible drug money that someone-not-so-nice might possibly come looking for. Better to hand it over and accept a finder's fee if there is one. You're still getting free money, but without worries.

 

[gauchecritic]

If he bought the house, it's his money. If he didn't then it's probably best to share.

The Guatamalan guy should only have been made to fill in the form and then let go with the money. All the money. His employer is the one that should be made to account for any revenue losses.

He was saving less than 6000 a year, what kind of slavery was he indentured for?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Agreed again. If it was a few hundred or even a few thousand, that'd be different. In that case you could probably say someone who may have passed on left it in the attic and it's "finders keepers." But $100,000? That much money, in cash, is something to worry about. That's possible drug money that someone-not-so-nice might possibly come looking for. Better to hand it over and accept a finder's fee if there is one. You're still getting free money, but without worries.

we're renting the place we're in now, and I found someone's "mad money" shoved into a coffee can while I was unpacking and putting things away. About $100. I gave it back.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If he bought the house, it's his money. If he didn't then it's probably best to share.

The Guatamalan guy should only have been made to fill in the form and then let go with the money. All the money. His employer is the one that should be made to account for any revenue losses.

He was saving less than 6000 a year, what kind of slavery was he indentured for?

Yeah, that's what i was thinking too-- chump change.

Besides there's something so fundamentally icky about the story-- It's the antithesis of the American Dream. I get the creeps. *

"Come work hard and save money. But the American government might take it all away from you." What's up with that? How can our colors proudly wave?


*not that that's so unusual these days...

 

[3113]

we're renting the place we're in now, and I found someone's "mad money" shoved into a coffee can while I was unpacking and putting things away. About $100. I gave it back.

If I were renting a place, I'd do the same thing. If I had bought a place...it would depend on where I found the money and how long after I'd bought the place that I found it. If it was really tucked away and seemed to have been for a while, or if I found it after living in a place for however many years, than I probably wouldn't bother trying to get it to the original owners (if, mind you, it was a small sum of money, not something ridiculous like $100,000). If I found it within a year or two of buying the place, I'd probably give it back to the original owners.

 

[3113]

It's the antithesis of the American Dream.

If the American dream is just "come to the U.S. and get rich" than anyone who does that ANY way they like is living the dream. Someone comes to the U.S. with illegal teenage girls and sells them into prostitution--makes money, hey! It's the American dream! Someone works very hard selling heroin to little kids, makes money, hey, it's the American dream! If all there is to the American dream is that hard work = money, then a lot of people are living the American dream even if their hard work involves something nasty. A hit man could be living the American dream.

What I'm saying is, either the American Dream is nothing to glorify because it doesn't exclude reprehensible jobs (like running your own child prostitution ring), or it is something to dream about because it includes other good values. And if it does include other, good values, than it can't be just "go to a country, earn money, and leave." Because anyone can do that in any country, not just America.

So I have to kinda dispute the argument that this was the "antithesis" of the American dream. Especially as the guy didn't, as the "typical" dreamer is usually picture doing, come here to make a whole new life. He just came here to make some money. He wasn't planning on saying and making America his home. Which is why he ran into trouble. Sorry. Not, in my book, trying to live the American dream. Just trying to make more money than he would in his own country.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The ethical answers would be, to the best of my judgement, that the first guy doesn't have a claim to the money--it isn't his--and the second guy doesn't have a claim to the money because he broke the law. Something being in your home isn't necessarily yours, and ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

The moral answer? They should both keep the money.

 

[Stella_Omega]

... Not, in my book, trying to live the American dream. Just trying to make more money than he would in his own country.

That's the NEW American Dream!

 

[buxxxom]

As for the first scenario, I'd never feel comfortable keeping the money. I'm a worrier, and I'd be afraid that someone would come looking for it or I'd feel badly that a sum that large could be making a difference for the person it was really meant for. I'd probably try to find the owner, while secretly spending it in my mind if I never found them.

As for Mr. Zapeta, I say let him have his money, minus the taxes. America is still a land of opportunity, and he worked hard and saved his money, but why should the taxpayers support anyone not paying taxes, who is planning to leave the country anyway? It's not like he'll be around to contribute later.

 

[S-Des]

So I have to kinda dispute the argument that this was the "antithesis" of the American dream. Especially as the guy didn't, as the "typical" dreamer is usually picture doing, come here to make a whole new life. He just came here to make some money. He wasn't planning on saying and making America his home. Which is why he ran into trouble. Sorry. Not, in my book, trying to live the American dream. Just trying to make more money than he would in his own country.

It's unfortunate that so many anti-illegal immigration folks (yes, I'm one), get stereotyped as racists by people who disagree. A large part of the reason I'm against it is because of the consequences to the people who sneak in (getting used and sometimes becoming vicitms in a system that doesn't watch out for them), and the people who work in low wage jobs and suddenly find themselves underbid by people who will work for illegal wages or under illegal (i.e. inhumane) conditions. Not to mention the people who have been legally waiting in line, only to find themselves pushed back by others whose only concerns are themselves (as if the legal immigrants don't face the same hardships).

The American dream has to mean more than, "Come here and do whatever you want, as long as you get paid," otherwise we might as well just give aid to poor countries. We need the flavoring of other cultures to better ourselves, not for them to come here for a short time, work as slaves, then go home so they can make a better life. In limited instances that's fine (if it's what they want), but in widespread cases, it detracts from what we are and could be.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Sorry y'all...but NOBODY on this plane of existence just "forgets" or "loses" $100,000. If they did, their asses woulda been BACK for that shit within the first few days of "losing" it. Finders' keepers, baby.

Salcedo was a dumbass for reporting that stash. If I buy a house, then everything in it's MINE. He ain't seeing SHIT back now and that's what you get for being Gallant AND Goofus at the same time. I can tell who ain't been born around MY neck of Detroit on this site!

Zapeta needs to pay the penalty. Take the requisite taxes out of his pile and give the rest back. Sorry, but if you lived here over 11 years even illegally and you STILL don't know the lingo good enough to know how to read basic shit in order to cover your ass as much as possible, then you DESERVE to get fucked over!

 

[rgraham666]

If he bought the house, it's his money. If he didn't then it's probably best to share.

The Guatamalan guy should only have been made to fill in the form and then let go with the money. All the money. His employer is the one that should be made to account for any revenue losses.

He was saving less than 6000 a year, what kind of slavery was he indentured for?

$6,000 a year is about 80% of my disability. I would love to save $5,000 a year.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm too paranoid for that. So much money in an attic, it very likely could be from an illegal source. I'd spend far too much time obsessing about whether someone was going to come looking for it (either the owner or the Feds). *shudder*

That's what the SO said, as well. Knowing that the previous owner of the home and likely hider of the money was stabbed to death is a bit of an incentive to deal above-board with it.

Come to think of it, I would probably try to get as many newspapers as possible to report on it, and perhaps erect a large glow-in-the-dark sign on the lawn reading "The money has been found and surrendered to the police." You can never be too sure when you're dealing with violent people willing to kill for money.

I enjoy forensics shows. I just saw one a few months ago about a poor innocent couple who were both shot, one of them killed, by people who entered the home looking for the drug dealer who'd moved out a week earlier. Hideous, hideous nightmare.

 

[rgraham666]

You should always know what exactly what you are doing when you decide to use guns. David Drake.

 

[S-Des]

I enjoy forensics shows. I just saw one a few months ago about a poor innocent couple who were both shot, one of them killed, by people who entered the home looking for the drug dealer who'd moved out a week earlier. Hideous, hideous nightmare.

You wonder how much that happens in real life. I know it happens a lot around here in the inner-city, with gangs mistaking innocent people for their enemies. It really is a horrible way to go . . . being taken out by mistake.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

As far as finding the money in the attic, the finder was correct in turning it over to the police. The legal system, however, may well have errored in not returning it. If the gentleman bought the property, then anything hidden in, buried under or attached to the property would rightfully be his.

As far as the Zepeta example is concerned, he ran afoul of the Federal Banking Regulations and the Internation Currency Regulations. These were set up a number of years ago to stop drug money from being transported across internation boundries. Had Zepeta gon to a bank and exchanged the cash for a certified check or even a letter of credit, he would have been fine. As it is, Zepeta appears to be pretty ignorant.

On the other hand, how does one save $59,000 over 11 years working a sub-minimum wage job to begin with? This doesn't seem very honest to me.