As I understand it, "Ready money" is cash in your pocket or money that is available to use immediately. I assume cash or coins kept under your mattress would also be "ready money." Investments in stocks are not "ready money" even though they are assets.
Would money in a bank or credit union checking account be "ready money"? It may not be available at all times. Banks limit the amount of money you can withdraw from an ATM in one day (and may have other limits.)
'Ready money' usually refers to notes and coins that are physically on hand you can pick up and wave at someone. Thus anything in secured facility that has to be visited, like a bank account or strong room doesn't count as such. In a way that's odd as a wad of notes in a cash box in the desk drawer would count as ready money but the same wad of notes sitting in a safe in the building down the street doesn't until such time as you're at the safe and unlocking it.
Ready money is cash. You don't have to liquidate anything, like you do with a stock or bond or other assets that aren't liquid..
Ready money is cash. You don't have to liquidate anything, like you do with a stock or bond or other assets that aren't liquid.
More specifically, 'ready money' is money that's physically 'at-hand' (i.e. not sitting in a bank, stuffed under your mattress or buried in your back yard).
It typically refers to money you don't have to think about. If you see something, you have enough you can simply purchase it outright, then and there, rather than having to consider how you're going to acquire the funds before the limited, one-of-a-kind item is sold out.
Having funds is one thing, having ready cash is something else entirely.
Having funds is one thing, having ready cash is something else entirely.
With our electronically connected society, in many (most) cases, the piece of plastic can count as well. A credit card with a high credit limit could also count.
As an example, my personal bank has a limit of $25,000 on a single electronic transfer of funds - buying something with my ATM card, with a maximum per day of $100,000. But I could write a valid check up to the maximum amount in my checking account. Presuming that is acceptable to the seller, that also counts as 'ready money.'
Annoyingly, they only allow me to deposit up to $5,000 per day simply taking a picture of the check(s) using online banking. Anything larger than that has to be presented in person.
As an example, my personal bank has a limit of $25,000 on a single electronic transfer of funds - buying something with my ATM card, with a maximum per day of $100,000. But I could write a valid check up to the maximum amount in my checking account. Presuming that is acceptable to the seller, that also counts as 'ready money.'
Except, in most cases, the term 'ready money' implies that there's a distinct need for discretion, whether it's purchasing a 'slightly used' product with a questionable origin (i.e. 'It fell off the back of a truck, I swear!') or the stereotypical drug buy, 'handy money' is intricately tied to questionable decisions, even if it's a simple as purchasing the leftover athletic equipment of your friends ex-husband, so she can 'get it out of my house!'
The idea isn't that you can get the money, it's that the money is already in your hand, not giving you sufficient time to question the wisdom of your decision. That's why the term is not used very often, as it has such precise context.
By the way, if you don't mind, is there a reason why you're asking? Somehow I doubt that you're uncertain what the term implies, so if you could specify why you're curious about the term, we could probably provide a more specific answer, phrased in a more meaningful context.
Crumbly Writer
5/22/2021, 10:08:08 AM
@PotomacBob
By the way, if you don't mind, is there a reason why you're asking?
Because I am working on a story in which a character is about to spend a large sum (Nothing illegitimate like drugs or blackmail or anything).
the discussion here lets me see that there's no universal agreement on the term. Some are saying that if you can write a check on your bank account, that's ready money. Others says that even cash is NOT ready money if you keep it under your mattress.
I had guessed that cash, regardless of where you kept it, was ready money. My bank, which has limited hours of being open, only allows $400 a day to be withdrawn by ATM from one account. Even if you walk into the bank with a check, there's a limit on how much cash you can withdraw, because the bank usually keeps on hand only enough cash to satisfy a single day's normal withdrawals.
Even if you walk into the bank with a check, there's a limit on how much cash you can withdraw, because the bank usually keeps on hand only enough cash to satisfy a single day's normal withdrawals.
If you are have a checkbook and a debit card against your checking account why do a withdrawal at all unless you need to pay someone who will only take cash?
And these days, cash only businesses are getting harder to find and outside of small contracting businesses, I would be suspicious about how legit a cash only business was.
It may not be available at all times. Banks limit the amount of money you can withdraw from an ATM in one day (and may have other limits.)
You can spend the money in your checking account without withdrawing it as cash. That is the point of a checking account as opposed to a savings account.
Yes, my debit card (against my checking account) has a daily cash withdrawal limit, but there is no purchase limit other than the current balance of my account.
You can spend the money in your checking account without withdrawing it as cash.
Not if your local drug dealer only takes cash.
Bob brought up the ATM limits so I assume he was talking about cash only.
Bob brought up the ATM limits so I assume he was talking about cash only.
Well, we all know what happens when you assume.
If he already intended to talk cash only, what was the point of asking:
Would money in a bank or credit union checking account be "ready money"?
If he was already talking cash only, he's already answered that question.
Ready money to me is a liquid asset. Cash in a safe, or any other tangible that someone is willing to take as payment for items or services rendered.
In a business, "ready money" is always referred to as "cash on hand" which is a legal term. Under the law, Cash on Hand means, as of any date, all petty cash, vault cash, teller cash, ATM cash, prepaid postage and cash equivalents held at a Branch.
Is 'unready money' blank paper that hasn't yet been through the mint's printing process?
AJ
Is 'unready money' blank paper that hasn't yet been through the mint's printing process?
More likely, it's foreign notes which have either lost most of their value, or need to be exchanged at a steep/competitive conversion rate. The money isn't 'ready' until it's converted, but the delay isn't that it actually takes much time, just that you're not sure it's worth doing in the first place.
But your answer is definitely more humorous than mine!
Is 'unready money' blank paper that hasn't yet been through the mint's printing process?
"Unready money" is the only kind that I have. When I need it, it's never ready, when I want it, it tells me I have to wait for next payday, and when I at last think it is ready, my ex-wife finds a way to take it.
"Unready money" is the only kind that I have.
You have money, wow, flash it a bit so the rest of us can see what it looks like, please.
You have money, wow
Am I the only one that always has been $500 and $1,000 in cash in his wallet all the time, regardless of what I have in the bank?
(And lest you think I'm an easy mark, I also live in a full 2nd Amendment state, so my Sig-Sauer P-238 is also ALWAYS concealed upon me somewhere.)
(And lest you think I'm an easy mark, I also live in a full 2nd Amendment state, so my Sig-Sauer P-238 is also ALWAYS concealed upon me somewhere.)
That is well and good but I personally know someone who thought as you did but it didn't stop a group from ambushing him with stun-guns and they took his wallet, shoes, and his gun all done right in the middle of a grocery store entrance/exit. Video shows them hitting their mark and stealing the items all in less then 5 secs and with covid-19 masks required good luck having the police solve anything. This was in Flint, Michigan middle of the day.
Video shows them hitting their mark and stealing the items all in less then 5 secs and with covid-19 masks required good luck having the police solve anything.
You wouldn't have much luck getting them to solve anything without pandemic related mask requirements.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/
The US national average clearance rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter is only 61.4%, and it goes down hill from there.
The cumulative average for violent crimes is 45.5%
Robbery 30.5%
Over all property crimes 17.2%
Motor vehicle theft is a mere 13.8%
Oh, and just so you know, clearance doesn't mean a conviction.
What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. The second way a case can be closed is through what is called exceptional means, where law enforcement must have either identified the offender, gathered enough evidence to arrest, charge, and prosecute someone, identified the offender's exact location, or come up against a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that keeps them from arresting and prosecuting the offender.
covid-19 masks required
They may be up there, they're not down here. And it's also called Situational Awareness. Keep in mind that I'm ALSO not the only one armed down here - we don't have a Governor that thinks she's a dictator. Crooks here pretty much ASSUME that whoever they're going up against is armed - and so is everyone else. (Mostly because we are.)
Am I the only one that always has been $500 and $1,000 in cash in his wallet all the time, regardless of what I have in the bank?
You make yourself vulnerable to civil asset forfeiture laws in that cash range.
You make yourself vulnerable to civil asset forfeiture laws in that cash range.
Officer, I'm on my way to Riverwind, or to the Grand, or to Winstar or to Remington Park. Gambling is legal here, and lots of people carry that much cash. And more.
Officer, I'm on my way to Riverwind, or to the Grand, or to Winstar or to Remington Park. Gambling is legal here, and lots of people carry that much cash. And more.
No, you have it backwards. With Civil Asset Forfeiture the cops don't have to prove you got the money illegally or that you were going to use it for something illegal. You have to prove that you and your money are innocent.
They don't have to charge you with anything, they don't even have to arrest you. They just confiscate the cash and then you have to sue them to get it back.
According to the cops, carrying cash is in and of itself suspicious.
With Civil Asset Forfeiture the cops don't have to prove you got the money illegally or that you were going to use it for something illegal. You have to prove that you and your money are innocent.
They also have to have probable cause to stop you in the first place. Anything else is a Fourth Amendment Violation. I'm not volunteering that I have the cash on me.
Mind you, I've seen many stops along I-35, where the out of state vehicle just happened to have all sorts of drugs in it. Neither of our POV's are anything remotely suspicious - 2014 Subaru Impreza with all my realtor advertising on it, and a 2019 Subaru Forester with SOME of my realtor advertising on it.
I've carried more than ten grand in cash before on an airplane flight, coming home from a good trip to Vegas. You don't act like a fool, they've got no reason to treat you like a fool.
They also have to have probable cause to stop you in the first place. Anything else is a Fourth Amendment Violation. I'm not volunteering that I have the cash on me.
Except you can't sue over a 4A violation. The only remedy for a 4A violation is evidence exclusion if you are arrested and tried.
Except you can't sue over a 4A violation. The only remedy for a 4A violation is evidence exclusion if you are arrested and tried.
Actually, you can. Civil Asset Forfeiture requires that the police officer seizing the property have a preponderance of evidence suggesting that the seized property was being used in wrongdoing. That does NOT mean that an officer has carte blanche to simply go through everything you have. If there is NOT probable cause and he searches you, then it's a 4A violation.
Now, hey, you've got all this money in a LOCKED briefcase. Did I give you permission to look in that locked case? No? Sorry, that's a 4A violation, because you had no probable cause to look there. Did I give you permission? Yes, but ... is there a preponderance of evidence to suggest I was involved in criminal activity? No? Give me my cash back.
According to the cops, carrying cash is in and of itself suspicious.
And here I thought the US was a country where the people are free. Carrying tens of thousands or more I can understand as being suspicious and should be cause for investigation, but it should not be possible to simply confiscate 500 or 1000. That screams dictatorial regime to me, not a free, enterprising country.
And here I thought the US was a country where the people are free.
It used to be.
Carrying tens of thousands or more I can understand as being suspicious and should be cause for investigation, but it should not be possible to simply confiscate 500 or 1000. That screams dictatorial regime to me, not a free, enterprising country.
The Alabama sate legislature just passed a civil asset forfeiture reform bill.
https://reason.com/2021/05/18/alabama-legislature-passes-modest-asset-forfeiture-reforms/
The bill would limit law enforcement seizures of cash to more than $250 and vehicles worth more than $5,000, among other provisions.
You can thank the "war on drugs" for this. It is getting better. Several states have recently passed reform laws that require a criminal conviction before civil asset forfeiture can be invoked.
Unfortunately in most of those states the local police can get around that by getting the Feds involved under arrangements that split the take between the feds and the local agency.
A major part of the problem is that in most states the money (including the proceeds on sale of non-cash assets seized) goes directly to the seizing agency's budget, bypassing the local government budgeting process, so there is a huge incentive for police to seize as much as possible.
Unfortunately in most of those states the local police can get around that by getting the Feds involved under arrangements that split the take between the feds and the local agency.
Such a construction should never be possible because it's a plain invitation to abuse it. Even the most stupid legislator should have seen that coming.
A major part of the problem is that in most states the money (including the proceeds on sale of non-cash assets seized) goes directly to the seizing agency's budget, bypassing the local government budgeting process, so there is a huge incentive for police to seize as much as possible.
Again, even the most stupid legislator should have seen that coming. Apparently there's something very wrong in the US in how certain legislation is introduced. I see some of the same things slowly creeping up here to (NL), not as bad (yet), but it's a slow boil.
@Dominions Son
Unfortunately in most of those states the local police can get around that by getting the Feds involved under arrangements that split the take between the feds and the local agency.
Such a construction should never be possible because it's a plain invitation to abuse it. Even the most stupid legislator should have seen that coming.
The feds have long had what they call equitable sharing agreements, where local LEAs turn seized material over to a federal agency to pursue civil forfeiture in the federal courts and kick back part of the value to the local agency. These agreements long predate attempts to reform civil asset forfeiture.
The states in question prohibited the use of civil asset forfeiture in the state courts absent a criminal conviction, but simply didn't think to explicitly prohibit participation in equitable sharing with the feds.
And the state reforms simply don't apply in federal court.
Again, even the most stupid legislator should have seen that coming.
You misunderstand. It wasn't an oversight. This was a quite deliberate choice on the part of the US Congress and state legislatures back when Civil Asset Forfeiture was first created at the start of the "war on drugs".
They might not have foreseen just how far it would go, but at the time, the incentive for police to maximize seizures was considered a feature, not a bug.
They might not have foreseen just how far it would go, but at the time, the incentive for police to maximize seizures was considered a feature, not a bug.
And still I state that even the most stupid legislator should have seen that coming. It's an obvious wide open door for abuse. The intentions might have been good but they should have seen the many possibilities for abuse and considered rewriting the rules to prevent using the law for something it was not intended to. I suspect that abuse prevention was intentionally left out.
And still I state that even the most stupid legislator should have seen that coming. It's an obvious wide open door for abuse.
You still don't understand. I'm saying they saw the potential for abuse and deliberately opened that door anyway.
The intentions might have been good...
Okay, that was damn funny.
And here I thought the US was a country where the people are free. Carrying tens of thousands or more I can understand as being suspicious and should be cause for investigation, but it should not be possible to simply confiscate 500 or 1000. That screams dictatorial regime to me, not a free, enterprising country.
I've been robbed around the world more times by crooked cops than by criminals. The local counties/authorities are more prone to this.
I'm not volunteering that I have the cash on me.
90% of US bills have traces of cocaine in them, enough to alert drug sniffing dogs. That excuse has been used repeatedly by leo. I got hit by this on I-40 in TN. Besides the money I had on me, the lawyers cost me more than the money I lost.
You may not think you're at risk, but I assure you that you are.
You may not think you're at risk
Oh, I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware of the OTHER minor detail, that I'm sure you're leaving out. If you're an asshole to the cop, don't expect him to be nice to you. If you're being decent to the police officer, cooperate with him, and if necessary, calmly explain to him why you disagree with him, if there is a disagreement, then chances are you're NOT at risk, because they're NOT going to call out the drug sniffing dogs on you.
Out of state plates and your actual behavior can make a HUGE difference in how the officer deals with you. I've seen it personally way too many times. (Remember, Criminology degree for me, which included both Corrections and Law Enforcement internship. Death Row at the Federal Penitentiary Terre Haute is not a nice place.)
I didn't leave anything out. Just being west bound on I-40 was enough. Apparently it's a known route for bringing cash back to Mexico and other points west and south for NE drug sales.
As far as being an ass towards cops, I'm not that stupid. Being polite = not getting shot.
Just being west bound on I-40 was enough.
So is I-35 running through the middle of OKC.
I agree, the drug laws are a major cause of this, which we wouldn't have to have those if some things weren't illegal or made sense. Simple example. Possession of cannabis is now legal in both Colorado and Oklahoma. Transportation of cannabis from Colorado TO Oklahoma is a violation of FEDERAL law. We have dispensaries, sometimes two on the same block down here now.
This sub-thread makes me wish I could drive down a highway in the US with about $30,000 in Confederate currency in a briefcase and see how they handle that. It isn't legal money in the US so it shouldn't come under that law.
And there is no "due process" with civil asset forfeiture.
These cases happen under the fiction that they are charging the asset seized with being involved in a crime.
If you go look you will find cases on the federal level
like US v $1,000 in $20 bills or US v airplane tail number xyz.
The asset doesn't have any rights. No right to a jury trial, not right to a speedy trial, no right to an attorney. No innocent until proven guilty.
Oh, and it's very hard to sue to get the asset back before the agency files a formal forfeiture complaint which there is no deadline for.
https://reason.com/2021/04/19/civil-forfeiture-supreme-court-gerardo-serrano-truck-customs-border-protection/
For years, the government refused to properly adjudicate the matter. Not only was Serrano never charged with a crime, but CBP never filed a formal forfeiture complaint: It just took Serrano's property and sat on it while his pleas fell on deaf ears. He eventually shelled out $3,800 to challenge the move in federal court, and still heard nothing—until he filed a lawsuit against the agency for violation of due process.
At that point, CBP suddenly came around and returned the property. "The upshot is that Serrano lost his property for two years based on nothing more than a probable cause determination by CBP agents who were clearly irritated by his refusal to provide his iPhone password," wrote Reason's Jacob Sullum last year. "Such delays are built into modern forfeiture procedures, which include an 'administrative' phase during which a property owner can plead for mercy from the same agency that took his stuff and would receive the proceeds from selling it."
On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear his case. That demurral reinforces the position taken by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals: that the government does not violate someone's due process when they take their property without a hearing. Other circuits have ruled to the contrary.
"When the agents seized my truck, I couldn't believe it was happening to me," said Serrano in a statement. "And now I'm back in the Twilight Zone, thinking this can't be real. How can the courts just ignore this? And how can an ordinary person afford to wait years after the government takes their car?"
Serrano was given several options immediately following the seizure, from doing nothing to paying the vehicle's full market value to get it back. Noticeably absent from the list: a hearing. Given what happened today, that unfortunately won't change anytime soon.