Category Archives: Confiscation

Economist Martin Armstrong Warns Of Storing Assets In U.S. Bank Safe Deposit Boxes

We’re back after a short break. And to jump start the continued discussion about asset protection outside the United States, I’d like to point out a February 25 blog post by economist Martin Armstrong on his company’s website. Regular readers of Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes know that Armstrong brings up bank safe deposit boxes from time to time, and the head of Armstrong Economics penned the following while I was away:

Keep in mind the government can close all banks for there is precedent. Whatever you have in a safe deposit box can also be seized and inspected.

There is no precise law against storing metal or cash in a safe deposit box. But law is malleable in the hands of any judge. He can seize the money or gold under the pretense of money laundering hiding it from the government. Under Civil Asset Forfeiture, they can assume the money is guilty of a crime being even tax evasion. It then is your burden to fight in court to get it back if you can hire a lawyer…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Keep in mind that Armstrong is referring to safe deposit boxes in U.S. financial institutions here, not secured storage containers located in private vaults outside the American banking system.

That being said, the economist sees a “global trend” in the seizure of assets through claims of money laundering and tax evasion. I blogged back on June 6, 2016:

Martin Armstrong… has chimed in on the new HSBC safe deposit box regulations in Hong Kong. He issued this warning on his company’s blog Friday:

Governments are targeting safe-deposit boxes to look for cash that is hiding from taxation. HSBC, a U.K. bank, is now moving against claimed financial crimes by altering conditions for safe-deposit boxes. This is becoming a global trend. Anything of value that is stored in a safe-deposit box is now considered money laundering. Governments want their taxes and all the laws are changing to ensure they get their money.

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

“Anything of value that is stored in a safe-deposit box is now considered money laundering”

Does that include legally-purchased and owned precious metals (with receipts to boot also showing taxes paid when applicable)?

Once again, these are bank safe deposit boxes Armstrong is talking about.

To date, I haven’t encountered anything by Mr. Armstrong about boxes in private, non-bank vaults.

By Christopher E. Hill
Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes (www.offshoresafedepositboxes.com)

(Editor’s note: A qualified professional should be consulted prior to making a financial decision based on information found in this weblog. If this recommended course of action is not pursued, then it must be understood that the decision is the reader’s and the reader’s alone. Christopher E. Hill, the creator/Editor of this blog, is not responsible for any personal liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any information presented on the site.)

Source:

Armstrong, Martin. “Is it Safe to Store Gold in a Safe Deposit Box?” Armstrong Economics Blog. 25 Feb. 2017. (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/gold/is-it-safe-to-store-gold-in-a-safe-deposit-box/). 7 Mar. 2017.

Share

Related Reading: Another Take On ‘Old’ Gold Coins Being Better Than Bullion Against Confiscation

Earlier this week I discussed two recent blog posts by economist Martin Armstrong concerning what he thinks is the most effective way to possess and retain physical gold in the face of government confiscation.

My understanding was “genuine old coins,” as:

Coins are better than bullion for they have some historical value. Their historical value could be an excuse to prevent confiscation if government simply declares that “gold is for criminals,” as they are trying to do with cash…

Another take on this comes from offshore expert Mark Nestmann, head of Phoenix, Arizona-based The Nestmann Group, who pointed out the following on The Silver Bear Cafe website some time ago:

Some coin dealers claim that numismatic (collector) coins would be exempt from any future government confiscation of gold and silver. This claim is based on the terms of Roosevelt’s 1933 emergency order, which specifically exempted “coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.”

Some firms say that premiums of at least 15% over the spot price of bullion magically turn coins “numismatic.” This notion is based on a proposed federal regulation issued in 1984, but never adopted. Other dealers claim that coins 100 years or older are automatically converted to numismatic status.

It’s beyond me why anyone takes these claims seriously. Why would a government that stole its citizens’ property in 1933 be consistent when it does so again?

Nothing obliges the federal government to pay by the same set of “rules” it imposed 75 years go. Nothing obliges the federal government to honor the terms of a proposed regulation issued a quarter century ago. And naturally, those rules can change at any time

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

What Nestmann wrote has stuck with me as I keep coming across the debate over what makes a coin “numismatic.” I even stumbled on the following just the other night on the website of a company offering asset protection services:

For a coin to be numismatic, its retail price must be double the value of its metal content.

Perhaps all for naught, according to Nestmann?

An insightful piece (he does espouse positioning “some gold and silver bullion outside the United States, preferably in a safety deposit box or a private vault”), which you can read in its entirety here on The Silver Bear Cafe site. For more information about The Nestmann Group, visit their website here.

By Christopher E. Hill
Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes (www.offshoresafedepositboxes.com)

(Editor’s note: The mention of businesses above should not be construed as confirmation of services claimed to be provided or any sort of recommendation. A qualified professional should be consulted prior to making a financial decision based on material found in this weblog. If this recommended course of action is not pursued, then it must be understood that the decision is the reader’s and the reader’s alone. Christopher E. Hill, the creator/Editor of this blog, is not responsible for any personal liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any information presented on the site.)

Share

Martin Armstrong: Old Gold Coins Better Than Bullion Against Confiscation

In two January blog posts on his company’s website, economist Martin Armstrong shared what he thinks is the most effective way to possess and retain physical gold in the face of government confiscation.

On January 10, Armstrong advised his blog readers:

As we move forward, it will be best to hold assets out of banks and out of currency. They can even declare gold a criminal act to possess, which is why I suggest genuine old coins rather than bullion. Just another layer of protection…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

On January 16, the head of Armstrong Economics elaborated:

Coins are better than bullion for they have some historical value. Their historical value could be an excuse to prevent confiscation if government simply declares that “gold is for criminals,” as they are trying to do with cash. I believe Trump would not go along with that move…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

I can’t fault Mr. Armstrong’s insistence on holding assets “out of banks and out of currency” considering recent events of wealth confiscation (as catalogued on this blog’s sister site- Offshore Private Vaults) being carried out by governments and banks around the world.

Neither can I argue with the economist’s recommendation of “old coins” versus bullion as it concerns potential gold confiscation. “Just another layer of protection” might be a good thing considering the uncertain times we live in today.

That being said, proponents of bullion contend numismatic coins mean “less bang for the buck” (less gold for your money) and there’s no guarantee this form of the yellow metal will be exempted from a future confiscation.

By Christopher E. Hill
Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes (www.offshoresafedepositboxes.com)

(Editor’s note: A qualified professional should be consulted prior to making a financial decision based on material found in this weblog. If this recommended course of action is not pursued, then it must be understood that the decision is the reader’s and the reader’s alone. Christopher E. Hill, the creator/Editor of this blog, is not responsible for any personal liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any information presented on the site.)

Sources:

Armstrong, Martin. “Monetary Devaluations & Cancellations” Armstrong Economics Blog. 10 Jan. 2017. (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/ancient-economies/monetary-devaluations-cancellations/). 17 Jan. 2017.

Armstrong, Martin. “Gold Bullion v Coins.” Armstrong Economics Blog. 16 Jan. 2017. (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/gold/gold-bullion-v-coins/). 17 Jan. 2017.

Share

Martin Armstrong On Proposal To Seize ‘Suspicious’ Gold Entering European Union

Last Wednesday, I wrote about a recent Reuters.com article which reported:

The European Commission proposed tightening controls on cash and precious metals transfers from outside the EU on Wednesday, in a bid to shut down one route for funding of militant attacks on the continent…

Authorities will also be able to seize cash or precious metals carried by suspect individuals entering the EU.

People carrying more than 10,000 euros ($10,400) in cash already have to declare this at customs when entering the EU. The new rules would allow authorities to seize money below that threshold “where there are suspicions of criminal activity,” the EU executive commission said in a note…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

I blogged about this proposal due to the ramifications it could have for those intending to carry legally-obtained and owned currency and precious metals into the Eurpoean Union for their safe deposit box.

Now, regular readers of Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes may remember my December 10 post mentioning economist Martin Armstrong and his belief there is a “War on Gold” being waged by revenue-starved governments. I wrote:

Yesterday, economist Martin Armstrong published a blog post on his company’s website entitled “Gold Headed Lower Under $1,000 into the Abyss.” The subject of the 2014 documentary The Forecaster claimed “India is moving now to confiscate gold after going after the cash” and talked about how this confiscation might be carried out. Armstrong added the following:

This is the problem I have been warning about with gold. It is losing it safe haven status for it is getting to the point you cannot travel with it, keep it in a safe deposit box, or show gold with jewelry

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

While that statement about not being able to “keep it in a safe deposit box” was met with “food for thought” from yours truly, Armstrong’s other claim about “it is getting to the point you cannot travel with it” warrants some “chewing” after that European Commission proposal.

As does this from Armstrong in a December 28 post on his company’s site:

The assault on gold is by no means casual. The hunt for money and the global effort to eliminate cash to be able to increase taxation is also targeting gold. All the sales pitches that gold will survive have ignored the fact that government is well aware of gold and people using it to store wealth

Gold is rapidly becoming the target of confiscation in Europe following the Berlin Christmas attack…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Hmm. Lots to digest here. And not all of it “agreeable”- which I’ll expand upon later.

By Christopher E. Hill
Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes (www.offshoresafedepositboxes.com)

(Editor’s note: A qualified professional should be consulted prior to making a financial decision based on information found in this weblog. If this recommended course of action is not pursued, then it must be understood that the decision is the reader’s and the reader’s alone. Christopher E. Hill, the creator/Editor of this blog, is not responsible for any personal liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any information presented on the site.)

Source:

Armstrong, Martin. “Confiscating Gold.” Armstrong Economics Blog. 28 Dec. 2016. (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/gold/confiscating-gold-3/). 3 Jan. 2017.

Share