The answer is in the article:

> The machines can be programmed to find cash, but they aren’t because they are operated by airport-security agents, responsible for passenger safety, not customs and immigration officials.

As to why the UK government doesn't pass a regulation that airport security is also responsible for detecting large amounts of cash, I have no idea.

As a British citizen, I'm quite happy with the detection of money laundering not being a responsibility of airport security. It might initially make sense to check for cash, because once the money leaves the country it's much harder to track. Yet, that's the same for any time a criminal leaves the country - should airport security be responsible for checking your cases for stolen goods?

Imposing such duties onto airports will be expensive. Smaller airports in Britain are already running at a tiny fraction of their capacity, with only London, Manchester and Edinburgh operating any serious services. A particularly striking example is Cardiff Airport: it can accommodate A380s, but you'll have to be patient if you want to spot a widebody airliner there. It's not really worth the extra equipment and staff to search for money laundering in these quieter airports, and the costs would probably force them to shut down entirely if not funded by the taxpayer.

This situation of reduced capacity is not entirely theoretical, either. Before boarding Eurostar railway services through the Channel Tunnel, passengers have to go through security which includes passport control, customs and X-Ray (for luggage) and millimetre band scanners (for passengers). The introduction of these checks reduced capacity by a third, meaning that the Eurostar trains run with empty seats, when other trains running domestic services on the very same line can be crowded. It's about to get even worse now that Britain and the EU are introducing incompatible facial recognition systems that gate the entrances.

As you can tell, I'm rather passionate about this issue :) I just think it's important that borders don't become the de-facto location on which all types of law enforcement converge, and for border security to be so entirely out of proportion with domestic policing.

None of your arguments make any sense to me.

It doesn't seem expensive -- it's literally a configuration option on the scanners already installed.

It doesn't have anything to do with stolen goods generally, it's simply about detecting stacks of cash that there's already a specific law stating that you must declare when leaving the country.

By definition this isn't regular domestic policing, because it's inherently an issue that can only occur at the border.

Separation of duties. Airport security do one job, border farce/customs do the other.

Turning airport security into customs and excise agents would be legally challenging.

Same way TSA in America largely don’t give a flying fuck when Amercians from legal states board international flights with cannabis products such as gummies or vape pens - that’s a problem for the customs people on the other side.

I should note here that some places do mix the duties - the airport security guys at Schipol will make a vague effort to stop you from taking a big bag of weed through, and will politely take it off your hands.

Free weed!

That's how it worked from experience and stories from friends. TSA is searching your bag for security things, not trying to find drugs. If they find it, might toss it, might ignore it, but they are not directly a police agency, they dgaf.

despite the separation of duties, at first glance, it would appear worthwhile to me for the customs agencies to buy access to the CT scanners or just the output from the security agencies so they could easily detect the cash

maybe there are laws regarding privacy or just bureaucratic challenges that prevent this though

On the gripping hand, traveling with cash should not be a crime. We already surrender so much privacy to the TSA.

I would fear that we would be hearing about more "TSA vs $20k in stacks of cash" civil forfeiture cases.

That's already the case, although not for domestic travelers it seems. See for example https://reason.com/2020/07/30/homeland-security-seized-2-bil...

for sure, I was thinking from the narrower government perspective rather than the larger "is this the right thing to do" view and appreciate the reminder to keep things in context

It's not a crime. You just have to declare it.

Of course, this information is going to be interesting to the police. So if they are the proceeds of crime, it will probably help get you caught.

It's not really any different from banks reporting every deposit of $10K or over. The government wants to track all large transfers of money both in bank accounts and across borders, so that it can identify money flows that are not being reported to the IRS and/or are the proceeds of criminal activity.

This is correct. A friend of ours works at TSA. They saw a sealed envelope that looked like a large amount of cash. Questioned the passenger, he answered “well”, but wasn’t a security threat so they let him through and called the correct authority at his domestic destination.

> As to why the UK government doesn't pass a regulation that airport security is also responsible for detecting large amounts of cash, I have no idea.

Shouldn't law abiding citizens have the right to possess and carry cash?

Whether or not our citizens should have the right to do something seems rarely related to whether the UK government sticks its noses in our business to make sure we aren't.

They have but it needs to be declared so as to avoid tax evasion and money laundering

Nobody says you can't, carrying whatever amount across the border is perfectly legal. What's illegal is trying to carry >10k without declaring it to the customs.

If you're a law abiding citizen, why wouldn't you declare it? If you don't, well congrats, you're no longer a law abiding citizen.

Customs is complicated, and security people struggle to detect security threats.

corruption maybe?

In addition, systematic security scans are performed at the departing airport, and it's generally not a crime to export huge amounts of undeclared cash, only to import it.

No, a major part of the article is that the scans are not performed.

And it absolutely is a crime to export huge amounts of undeclared cash. Again, a major part of the article.

Think about it -- if large amounts of undeclared cash are being exported, then they're probably both criminal proceeds and haven't had taxes paid on them. And the government wants to stop both.

It's actually the government on the import side that may be less interested. As in this very article. Governments are less likely to be complaining about money coming in.

Customs can certainly approach you any time right up to the gate. In 2010, my wife and I were approached by an agent and asked very directly if we had more than $10,000 in USD cash with us as we waited at the gate to board a nonstop flight from the US to Moscow. We answered truthfully "no" in a brief conversation and he wished us well almost immediately.

I don't think he suspected we were money launderers. My guess is that upon hearing both of us speak, he easily determined that we were not natives of Russia and thus not, for example, carrying but not declaring a substantial amount of cash intended for family back home.

I'm also surprised by that claim. Every time I've flown with a thick book in my carryon, it's been flagged for inspection. One of the staff told me once that it's because thick stacks of paper look a lot like plastic explosive on an X-ray. I have to imagine a suitcase full of cash would look the same way.

US currency is made with a mix of 75% cotton and 25% linen fibers, rather than wood pulp like paper. They're less dense so they probably don't look the same on an xray.

But they have anti-counterfeiting metallic strips and ink, you'd think that would jump out on an x-ray image.

XRay depends on density and the security features are way too thin to matter