Is Receiving Large Sum of Cash Evidence to Drug Sales ?
In Fifty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency v. State, 730 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex. 1987), the possible conclusions that could be reached from circumstantial evidence were that the sum of money found in the bathroom of the claimant's residence was received from unlawful drug sales or that it was received in connection with the claimant's legitimate business dealings requiring cash payments due to the devaluation of Mexican currency. Fifty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency v. State, 730 S.W.2d at 662.
The claimant presented direct evidence that he had received a large sum of cash for legitimate business reasons within two weeks prior to the discovery of the cash. Id.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient. Id.
In Litton Industrial Products, Inc. v. Gammage, 668 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Tex. 1984), the plaintiff, in order to recover treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, was required to prove that Litton did an act or practice after May 21, 1973, the effective date of the act. Litton Industrial Products, Inc. v. Gammage, 668 S.W.2d at 324.
There was no evidence from which one might reasonably infer that the conduct occurred before, as opposed to after, May 21, 1973. Id.