What scrutiny to expect if making large purchase with physical cash? [duplicate]
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/buying-house-with-cash/ It looks like you can, but it's a bad idea because you lack protection of a receipt, there's no record of you actually giving the money over, and the money would need to be counted - bill by bill - which increases time and likelihood of error.   In general, paying large amounts in cash won't bring up any scrutiny because there's no record. How can the IRS scrutinize something that it can't know about? Of course, if you withdraw 200k from your bank account, or deposit 200k into it then the government would know and it would certainly be flagged as suspicious.
Contrary to what many people think, credit card companies pass nearly all fraud costs via purchased goods onto the merchant who sells them. As a result, they stand a very high chance of getting the money from a fraudulent purchase of a specific purchased item back, as they just chargeback the merchant who has to stomach the cost. This is not the case for cash transactions obviously, where as soon as the money leaves the ATM fraudulently it is as good as gone. As a result, the risk profile of the two types of transaction is wildly different, and the credit limits of each reflect this. Yes, truckloads of cash. /s  It's exactly the same as your example, when people say to pay for a car in cash, they don't meany physical bills, but rather the idea that you aren't getting a loan.   In most acquisitions, the buyer will usually pay with their own stock, pay in cash, or a combination of both. Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting. There's still a paper trail for every transaction. There's gotta be a debit and credit in there somewhere. Plus these companies are supposed to be audited by an *independent* auditor who, if they're worth their salt, should be able to track down every penny. Online groceries in Kolkata can put a conclusion to feared treks to the market. There are administrations that ship staple goods the nation over and a few chains utilize nearby conveyance too. This can spare us huge amounts of time, and that itself is justified regardless of its ruler's payment. In any case, can shopping on the web market in Kolkata preserve us cash? Regularly it can. There should be no problems with CBP; they'll take the form and may ask some questions, but it is completely legal. I would be worried to carry so much cash around though, and many places might not readily accept cash. You cannot rent a car (without a huge cash deposit), and you cannot book hotels or anything else online with the cash. If you have any way to have a credit card, prefer that. If this is not possible consider even buying a refillable card in a supermarket after arrival. Beside standard Swift (which may be registered and checked for money laundering) there are the money transfer companies (Western Union) and the electronic currencies like bitcoin.  Besides that is buying something very expensive (gold / diamonds) and sell them again a possibility to transport vast amount of value. "Let me do the math. .6% * (not large) = really tiny. Since ""not large"" = ""small"" , etc.  I suggest that even a small chance that you need to explain this to anyone in the future is a sign to avoid the risk. Yes, there are times that it's illegal. A real estate office may not deposit escrow funds into anything but a segregated escrow account.  In your case, even if legal, it messes up 'the books' and can cost you more in grief than the 'tiny amount' saves you in cash." Possible ways they could make money (or think they could): I would go back through your transaction history and see if it's disappeared.  Even with an assumed-rubbish interface finding a reversal of the transaction should be easy as you know the amount.  I wouldn't spend it for a very long time if it is still there, just in case my last bullet applies. Given what they knew about you (phone number and account details) I'd be wary enough to keep an eye on all my accounts, possibly wary enough to consider credit monitoring in case they try to open other accounts with your details.  Although of course plenty of people have legitimate reasons to have this information - if you've written a cheque the account details will be on it, and you might well be in the phone book or otherwise searchable. "It's worth pointing out that most ""cash"" deals are actually debt financed, at least in part. A quick review of the 8K tells us they plan on debt financing the entire transaction with some senior notes and not use any of the 15B on their BS. This is fairly typical these days because debt is cheaper then the foregone interest on cash." Well, it really doesn't make sense to pay for either in cash. For these purchases, unless you're super wealthy, you won't be paying it in full. If you were to pay in full, then I don't see any practical point to withdraw that money in cash. Making a payment of any amount is usually legal, although of course the specific circumstances matter, and I'm not qualified to give legal advice. Just had to throw in that disclaimer not because I think there's a problem here, but because it is impossible to give a definite answer to a legal question in a specific situation on Stack Exchange. But the government will be involved. There are two parts to that. First, as part of anti-money-laundering laws, banks have to report all transactions above a certain limit; I believe $10k. When you use a check or similar to pay, that happens pretty much automatically. When making a cash payment, you may have to fill out some forms. An secondly, Edward Snowden revealed that the government also tapped into banking networks, so pretty much every transaction is recorded, even if it is not reportable. Yes it should be a ACH or other electronic transfer. However, it not unusual to have checks sent for large amounts in corporate banking. Large companies don't give large checks to tellers, they have it sent to a lockbox. However, lockboxes are suited for payment of invoices and I never heard of a billion dollar invoice.  edit: Also, I believe that some of the bailouts were done in checks, but honestly I'm not 100% on that. Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US.  Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction.  For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy.  That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either.  Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods.  Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine.  These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%.  More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine.  EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online.  You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually. Deliberately breaking transactions into smaller units to avoid reporting requirements is called structuring and may attract the attention of the IRS and/or law enforcement agencies.  I'm not sure what the specific laws are on structuring with respect to FBAR reporting requirements and/or electronic transfers (as opposed to cash transactions).  However, there's been substantial recent publicity about cases where people had their assets seized simply because federal agents suspected they were trying to avoid reporting requirements (even if there was no hard evidence of this).  It is safer not to risk it.  Don't try to structure your transactions to avoid the reporting requirements.