Most countries have a cap at 10,000 USD (or foreign currency equivalent) for undeclared amounts of cash or other monetary assets, as amounts larger than that have to be declared upon travel. Crypto (like BTC or Monero) isn’t counted since it’s not considered as “valid currency” by the world bank.
The limit not only applies to cash since they count any assets worth of value (gold, checks, bonds, jewelery, artworks, luxury goods, high end electronics, etc). since those have been used and exploited for laundering money, I guess. So, even if he has 500 Rolexes fitted into suitcases worth over $100,000 will that still be taken?
It’s like if some one has 800 Chanel Handbags & 200 Hermès watches and mens footwear combined totalling to $50,000 in value stuffed onto mutiple huge suitcases and attempts to travel with that since huge stacks of cash will be flagged, so accessories are used to bring in money.
I’ve heard cases regarding civil asset forfeiture with citizens traveling domestically having large amounts still got it confiscated by DEA agents due to suspicion of criminal activity. So in knowing that, will they still seize non-USD currency: 30,000,000 Rials (~$78,125,000) in cash even though it’s being withdrawn from an Omani bank and it’s the individual’s own money just carried out in multiple stacks.
Civil forfeiture and DEA is a separate problem unto itself, and you’ve always hit on the key points: DEA operates within the country, whereas customs is at port of entries. DEA’s corruption and geographic reach mean they have caused far more problems than any customs agent, in pursuit of a 1990s zeal that “drugs are bad” and expanding that into a parallel law enforcement system, despite already having a federal law enforcement department: the FBI. Civil forfeiture should be abolished as unconstitutional, violating due process, equal protection, and property law.
So yes, once you’re in the country, there is a risk to carry around large sums of cash. But that’s hardly connected to the customs declaration requirement, and certainly cannot be connected to the declaration requirement on the way out.