What happens if one brings more than 10,000 USD with them into the US?
"The US Customs and Border Protection website states that there is no limit to the amount of currency that can be brought into or taken out of the US.   There is no limit on the amount of money that can be taken out of or brought into the United States. However, if a person or persons traveling together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a ""Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments"" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790). The CBP site also notes that failure to declare currency and monetary instruments in excess of $10,000 may result in its seizure. Further, the site states that the requirement to report currency on a FinCEN 105 does not apply to imports of gold bullion.  However, the legal website The Law Dictionary includes details of how money laundering laws may come into play here : As part of the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, U.S. law enforcement agencies have significantly increased their vigilance over money laundering. To this effect, travelers who carry large amounts of cash without supporting documentation of its legitimate source may be subject to secondary inspections and seizure of funds. In some cases, law enforcement may confiscate cash in excess of $10,000 until supporting documents are produced. So far, I have described the ""official"" position.  However, reading between the lines, I think it is fair to say that in the current climate if you show up at an entry point with a suitcase full of a large amount of cash you would face considerable scrutiny, regardless of any supporting documentation you may present. If you fail to present supporting documentation, then I think your cash would certainly be seized.  If you are a US resident, then you would be given the opportunity to obtain satisfactory documentation.  If you did present documentation, then I think your cash would be held for as long as it would take to verify the validity of the documentation.  Failure to present valid documentation would result in money laundering charges being brought against you and the matter would rest before the courts. If you are not a US resident, then failing to produce supporting documentation would mean your cash being seized and entry into the US would almost certainly be denied.  You would then have to deal with the situation from outside of the US.  If you did produce supporting documentation, then again I suspect the cash would be held for as long as it takes to verify the validity of the documentation.  Whether or not you were allowed to enter the US would depend on what other documentation you possess." "Since all the other answers thus far seem to downplay the risk (likelihood) of the money being seized, I figure I may as well make my comment an answer. Unless you happen to have your legal team travelling with you and your suitcase of cash, you should expect that you'll be questioned extensively, so that any sign of nervousness, inconsistency in your answers or anything you say that doesn't ""make sense"" to the officer will be used as an excuse to seize your money, and you'll learn an expensive lesson in civil asset forfeiture. The government will file a complaint against your money, leading to a ridiculously named case, such as United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency. Worth noting that while the outcome in this case was not in the government's favor, in the vast majority of cases, the government keeps the cash. Between 9/11 and 2014, U.S police forces have seized over 2.5 billion dollars in cash without search warrants or indictments and returned the money in less than 10% of cases.  That last link is kind of a long read, but contains cases where people with completely legitimate money and documentation for their money had it seized anyway, and were only able to recover it after months or years in court." The $10,000 mark is not a ceiling in importing cash, but rather a point where an additional declaration needs to be made (Customs Form 4790). At 1 million, I suspect you might be in for a bit of an interview and delay. Here's an explanation of what happens when the declaration isn't made: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/failure-declare-results-seizure-24000-arrest-two Once you declare the amount, the CBP officials will ask you the source and purpose of funds. You must be able to demonstrate that the source of funds is legitimate and not the proceeds of crime and it is not for the purposes of financing terrorism. Once they have determined that the source and purpose is legitimate, they will take you to a private room where two officers will count and validate the amount (as it is a large amount); and then return the currency to you. For nominal amounts they count it at the CBP officer's inspection desk. Once they have done that, you are free to go on your way. The rule (for the US) is any currency or monetary instrument that is above the equivalent of 10,000 USD. So this will also apply if you are carrying a combination of GBP, EUR and USD that totals to more than $10,000. "Bad plan. This seems like a recipe for having your money taken away from you by CBP.  Let me explain the biases which make it so.  US banking is reliable enough for the common citizen, that everyone simply uses banks.  To elaborate, Americans who are unbanked either can't produce simple identity paperwork; or they got an account but then got blacklisted for overdrawing it. These are problems of the poor, not millionaires.  Outside of determined ""off the grid"" folks with political reasons to not be in the banking and credit systsm, anyone with money uses the banking system.  Who's not a criminal, anyway.  We also have strong laws against money laundering: turning cash (of questionable origin) into ""sanitized"" cash on deposit in a bank.  The most obvious trick is deposit $5000/day for 200 days. Nope, that's Structuring: yeah, we have a word for that.  A guy with $1 million cash, it is presumed he has no choice: he can't convert it into a bank deposit, as in this problem - note where she says she can't launder it.  If it's normal for people in your country to haul around cash, due to a defective banking system, you're not the only one with that problem, and nearby there'll be a country with a good banking system who understands your situation.  Deposit it there.  Then retain a US lawyer who specializes in this, and follow his advice about moving the money to the US via funds transfer. Even then, you may have some explaining to do; but far less than with cash.  (And keep in mind for those politically motivated off-the-financial-grid types, they're a bit crazy but definitely not stupid, live a cash life everyday, and know the law better than anybody. They would definitely consider using banks and funds transfers for the border crossing proper, because of Customs.  Then they'll turn it into cash domestically and close the accounts.)"
"There isn't a single rate that works in both directions.  There are two rates, one for each direction.  So if $1 = 64.23 INR, you may find that 100 INR = $1.55.   In fact, it's even worse than that.  The ""rates"" are just the average values at which transactions occur.  What happens in the real world is that someone (presumably your bank in this instance) offers to sell 100 INR for some amount, perhaps $1.56.  Other traders may either accept this price or refuse to trade.  If they refuse to trade, the bank may accept one of their offers, perhaps $1.55.   Anyway, the answer to your question is that whomever does the actual conversion keeps the ""difference"".  Of course, they may then lose that money if the value falls before they sell.  More confusingly, either your bank or your friend's bank could do the conversion itself.  Either or both could hold balances in various currencies so that they don't have to rely on the vagaries of the exchange market.  This is called a money market account, and banks let their customers invest in them.   It is a bit more likely to be your bank that gets the money than your friend's bank.  Your friend's bank doesn't actually need to know that your account is in USD.  They just transfer the amount in INR.  It's your bank that has to convert that into USD to deposit in your account." Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion.   Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest.   Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals.   Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes.   The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid.   Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury.   So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail].   Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well.   Part 3 Check out the regulations "Many people assume that if the price of something is $10 and they have 1,000 of that thing, they should expect to be able to sell them for something around $10,000.  Such an assumption may hold much of the time, but it doesn't always.  Worse, the cases where it fails to hold are often those where it would be relied upon most heavily.  Such an assumption should thus be considered dangerous. In a liquid market, the quantity of a something that people would be willing to buy at something close to the market price will be large relative to the quantity that people would seek to sell in the short term.  If at some moment in time one person in the market was willing to immediately buy 500 shares at $9.98 and another was willing to immediately buy 750 at $9.97, someone seeking to sell 1,000 shares could immediately receive $997.50 for them (selling 500 to the first person and 500 to the second, who would then be ready to buy 250 more from the first person who was willing to sell for $9.97).  Such behavior would be in line with what many people's assumptions. In an illiquid market, however, the quantity of something that people would be willing to buy near market price could be surprisingly low.  This is more often a problem in the marketplace of things like collectibles than of stocks, but the same thing can happen in the stock market.  If there's one potential buyer for a stock who thinks it's overpriced but has potential and would be worth $9.50, but that person only has $950 to spend, and nobody else thinks the stock would be worth more than $0.02/share, then until people sold a total of 100 shares the price would be $9.50, but after that the price would drop instantly to $0.02.  There would be no ""cushioning"" of the fall.  If the person with 1,000 shares was first in line, he'd get to sell 100 shares for $950 to the aforementioned seller, but would be unable to get more than $18 for the remaining 900. A major danger with markets is that markets which are perceived as liquid attract people to the buying side, while those which are seen as illiquid repel people.  The danger in the latter is obvious (having people flee a seemingly-illiquid market will reduce its liquidity further) but the former is just as bad.  Having people flock to a market because of its perceived liquidity will increase its liquidity, but can also create a ""false price floor"", causing demand to appear much stronger than it actually is.  Unless real demand increases to match the false price floor, the people who buy at the higher price will never be able to recoup their investment." "The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at.   Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account.   Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a ""Rupee Draft/Bankers Check"" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen." If one of the EURO countries goes bankrupt, then it will destablise the entire financial industry. IE there would be many financial institutions [Banks, Credit Union, Pension Funds, Insurance Funds, Corporates] that are holding EURO Investments in that country will loose their money and this will have a cascading impact ... similar and much bigger than US Sub-prime crisis of 2008. So if your money is in EURO and you are staying in EURO countires, the inflation will mean your money is of less value ... If you are holding USD and staying in EURO and country goes bankrupt then chances are that it will loose value with USD and hence you can convert them to EURO and spend more EUROs to buy the same items ... No such law in existence or planning. There are no limits on what you can transfer in or out of the USA, as long as you're not doing tax evasion/money laundering, or violating embargo laws against specific countries and organizations. Explanation why Rob's answer is wrong: There's no, and never has been, withholding requirement when transferring money between own accounts. FATCA doesn't impose any new withholding. It reinforces the existing 30% withholding requirement, and suggests that the 30% withholding requirement may supersede treaty positions. Generally internal legislation cannot supersede international treaties, so I'm very skeptical about the US Gov't ability to enforce this. 30% withholding on payments to  foreign people/entities has always been there. It's not new. Certain payments that are income sourced in the US and being remitted to foreign payees is subject to 30% withholding (unless treaty says otherwise). There's nothing new about it, been like that forever. Since your question is very particular on the details, I'm assuming you did your research. Unfortunately you won't get a better answer here than what you've found on the Internet already. This is not a clear-cut situation as the situation you're describing has been a source to some confusion. Mainly, the question is whether the US bank account is a tangible asset or not. To the best of my knowledge, this has not yet been settled, so I suggest going to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) who'd advise you the best course of action. I think it would be safer to transfer the money directly from the foreign account to the US beneficiary (although even then, if the IRS decides to start digging, it may claim that you're essentially disguising a transfer from a US account, so I suggest talking to a professional before doing anything). In any case, the US recipient will need to report the gift (if it is $100K or more) using the form 3520 with his/her tax return. When traveling you can use any flavor of credit card or exchange usd to local currency. When you move, just switch to a new local credit union. Leaving big banks for a credit union might not personally give you a different experience, but at least you can know you're not supporting scum.