Asymmetrical Information

I can see your point with the boat example, however the parallel isn't there. Rush used the money to buy something illegal. Let's face it, I don't think that his drug dealer would have accepted a check for obvious reasons. He helped his dealer avoid taxation and detection by using cash in his dealings.

Personally, I believe that the war on drugs is kind of useless and I feel sorry for the guy and hope that he uses his pulpit to attack the war on drugs.

I can never resist the opportunity to post these 2 links.

Sybase Solves USAPA Banking Compliance Challenge
Gartner Report on USAPA wrt Financial Transactions

Does anyone think Rush is a terrorist? (No, don't answer that! ;-)

Excellent point. I'd like to add a Cliff's Notes version of some aspects of the law that I bet would surprise a lot of people.

It isn't the person who withdraws or deposits money who has to file the currency transaction report (CTR), it's the "financial institution." See 31 U.S.C. 5313. So it's not a matter of withdrawing multiple amounts less than $10,000 to avoid having to fill out a form; the crime is doing that so that the financial institution doesn't have to fill out a form. See 31 U.S.C. 5324. And "financial institution" is defined rather creatively to include entities such as travel agencies and car dealerships. See 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2). What's more, under 26 U.S.C. 6050I, "trades" and "businesses" also have to file CTR's, and 6050I(e) makes it a crime to structure transactions to avoid that reporting requirement, as well. (I'm not sure which code provision defines "trade" and "business" for purposes of 6050I.)

By the way, if the financial institution thinks you're structuring, the financial institution has to fill yet another form called a "suspicious activity report."

In other words, federal law turns entities with whom you do business into government spies.

I agree completely about our drug laws. I also agree about reporting requirements. But it sure looks to me like Rush broke the law. And that means he goes to court.

Something Kleiman left out of his summary is that Rush's bank has aparantly paid a substantial fine for facilitating such withdraws for several of its clients. That is, when a client asked to withdraw $18,000, his or her banker might suggest that the transaction be structured as two $9,000 withdrawals. Rush claims that he was following his banks's advice in the way he took cash out of his account . Since the bank was fined for helping other clients with similar transactions, Rush's claim is, at first blush, credible. Time will tell.

Anyone know if the feds have to prove intent and/or knowledge that the act vilolated the law?

Rush addressed this issue on the air last week and according to him the bank requested he withdraw money in under 10k lots at a time and the matter has already been dealt with legally and the bank has paid a fine which is in line with B's post.
There is an effort to pile on Rush at this point which will backfire if he is proven without fault, at least on this issue.

Something Kleiman left out of his summary is that Rush's bank has aparantly paid a substantial fine for facilitating such withdraws for several of its clients. That is, when a client asked to withdraw $18,000, his or her banker might suggest that the transaction be structured as two $9,000 withdrawals. Rush claims that he was following his banks's advice in the way he took cash out of his account . Since the bank was fined for helping other clients with similar transactions, Rush's claim is, at first blush, credible. Time will tell.

Anyone know if the feds have to prove intent and/or knowledge that the act vilolated the law?

I find it interesting that some people think this requirement is wrong, but at the same time, think Rush should be hammered because they don't like his views.

I don't like Teddy Kennedy. I'll bet he makes withdrawals of less than $10K all the time (or has one of his flunkys do it for him.) this allows him to avoid these same laws. Should he be punished?

This immediately brings to mind the lame theory under which Martha Stewart is being prosecuted; namely, that denying any wrongdoing constituted an illegal attempt to manipulate the stock value of her own company. Offhand, I'd say that a few U.S. attorneys needs to be pimp-slapped until they promise to start working for a f***ing living again rather than dreaming up asinine legal theories to prosecute celebrities in order to get mentioned in their ala mater's law review.

Prosecute him for buying prescription drugs without a prescription, but not for money laundering. That's just silly.

WRT janet reno vs john ashcroft; on what basis is the comparison being made? i can think of concrete instances of reno violating civil rights, but cannot think of comparable instances for ashcroft. perhaps the argument becomes legislation that has been passed under their watch, in which case i'm ignorant of said under reno. what say ye?

Well, start with the gutting of the fourth amendment under the Clinton administration. Add in Reno's innovative use of tanks and SWAT teams in child welfare cases, the expansive use of RICO (targeted on politically unpopular groups such as anti-abortion protesters), the devil-may-care approach to entrapment . . . the list goes on. Remember, Ashcroft didn't sponsor Patriot or Patriot II -- he just enforces them.

and there i was, thinking the money laundering laws were designed to help the authorities fight organized crime...

They are, cas, but my point is that the "help" hurts society more than it helps. They're too prone to abuse.

"Anyone know if the feds have to prove intent and/or knowledge that the act vilolated the law?

Posted by David Walser" But I thought Rush knew everything! ;-)

Jane, I thought Ashcroft (or his underlings) wrote the Patriot Act. And he sure isn't out there asking for the repeal of the most outrageous parts.

Although, as has been often pointed out on the Volokh Conspiracy, it isn't necessary to use the Patriot Act to violate citizen's rights. Reno's and earlier drug-war precedents are quite sufficient.

if I want to go buy a boat costing $15K, and the seller demands cash, and I withdraw the money in two $7500 lots to avoid the hassle of filling out a form, am I "laundering money"?

No, you are "structuring," which is also illegal.

This is no different than the requirement that you have a license and insurance before you drive on a public way, whether or not you're a good driver. If you want to use the federally insured banking system, you have to play by the rules. Otherwise, stick it in your mattress.

More pragmatically, I disagree that "casting a net this wide presents a potential intrusion into every facet of our lives in a way that prohibiting the purchase of certain chemicals does not." If the threshold amount for reporting were $100, the argument might have some force. But I have never in my life needed $10000 in cash for any purpose; indeed, I cannot remember offhand ever having had more than perhaps $2000 in cash. Imposing a minor procedural requirement that effectively denies really bad people use of the nation's banking system seems like a good deal to me.

Alkali, that strikes me as a very silly justification for it. First, the justice department has nothing to do with the bank regulators, and second, neither does a structured transaction. The purpose is entirely to facilitate prosecution of non-financial crimes, such as tax evasion or blackmarket activity, not to keep me from behavior that might endanger the stability of my FDIC-insured account. And third, since there is no unregulated system where I may save my money (other than my mattress), you can't argue that I'm having conditions put upon me in exchange for a benefit I've chosen, in the way that you can make such an argument about, say, public housing: the Feds have abrogated my right to a non-insured bank account. While I agree that this still allows them to demand certain things to minimize moral hazard and other insurance fraud, that doesn't give them the right to tell me how to structure my withdrawals, any more than it gives them the right to tell me how to spend the money once I've withdrawn it.

This Rush thing is just getting stupid. The 'under $10,000' bit was the fault of the bank, the fine proves it--it's bogus attempt at finding a charge to stick--like the notion that Rush should get busted for buying prescription drugs without a prescription.

You can't bust someone for possession without the drugs. Crackheads don't get busted for crack possession simply because they're crackheads--even if they walk up to a cop, and say that they've purchased crack before, without the crack, there's no proof--no matter how much of a crackhead the person in question might be.

How often do we hear of this star or that star checking into rehab? Like Michael Jackson's bout with painkillers before his latest boy eruption? Notice any talk of arresting him for drugs?

They're desperate to get some charge, some crime to stick. Because then maybe they can shut Rush up.

To answer David Walser's question, the statute Kleiman quotes says that the intent requirement is:

the intent -

(A) to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;

(B) to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or

(C) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

Note that avoiding reporting requirements is only one possible way to violate the statute, and that the statute doesn't require a "willful" violation, which is the magic word for requiring a showing of specific knowledge of, and intent to violate, the statute in question. Then again, (B) refers to "proceeds" of unlawful activity, which isn't at issue here, and I don't know offhand what drug-related activity is contained in "specified activity" covered by (A) or whether (A) has been read by the courts to include a drug user withdrawing cash to buy drugs. If not, then (C) would apply and there would need to be at least a general showing of knowledge of the existence of reporting requirements and an intent to avoid them (which might be satisified even if this was just nodding along when the bank says "we'd like to break this in two pieces so we don't have to report it.")

What's crazy about applying the money laundering statute here -- and in some of the other contexts where it's been applied -- is that the money laundering penalties under the Sentencing Guidelines are much stiffer than the penalties for many kinds of underlying criminal activities.

I would agree that the relationship between the reporting requirement and the healthy functioning of the financial system is not direct. If pressed, I would say that this sort of intrusion is just a small price you pay for living in a modern industrial society.

There is a small-d democratic justification for it, however: fighting money laundering strikes right at the heart of organized crime. A serious organized crime problem is not compatible with democratic governance. The financial institution reporting requirements strike me as one of the least intrusive ways that a democracy can fight organized crime. The practicality side of the ledger seems very compelling to me.

jack writes:

They're desperate to get some charge, some crime to stick. Because then maybe they can shut Rush up.

Who's "they"? The left-wing cadre running the Department of Justice?

Alkali,

Your justification might make sense if "financial institution," as understood by the law, meant "FDIC insured bank." But it doesn't.

It includes, among others:

an operator of a credit card system;
an insurance company;
a dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels;
a pawnbroker;
a travel agency;
a telegraph company;
a business engaged in vehicle sales, including automobile, airplane, and boat sales;
persons involved in real estate closings and settlements;

Jewelers, travel agencies, and real-estate agents are not, I believe, insured by FDIC.

jack writes:

They're desperate to get some charge, some crime to stick. Because then maybe they can shut Rush up.

Who's "they"? The left-wing cadre running the Department of Justice?

If this is about organized crime, why the heck are they going after Rush?

Many things might strike at the heart of organized crime--targeted assasinations, for instance. The point of this post is that a particular law may be a good idea in a world where prosecutors are not prone to overreach--but in the real world, they ARE prone to overreach, and we must pick our laws with that in mind.

Alkali,

"But I have never in my life needed $10000 in cash for any purpose; indeed, I cannot remember offhand ever having had more than perhaps $2000 in cash."

My grandfather used to walk around with about $10000 in his pocket at all times. He was a small business man and often paid for things in cash. He lived in a small rural town in Missouri where everybody new him so robbery largely wasn't an issue. Why did he need so much? I honestly don't know. He wanted it that way is the best answer I can give. In this country that is all that should matter. If these ridiculous restrictions of our freedom are necessary to fight organized crime, then they should be only used in cases that involve organized crime. For the record, I am talking about Tony Montana-Sonny Corleon (sp?) type organized crime. It does not constitute organized crime just because two people are involved.

I've never litigated this statutory provision, so I'm guessing here, but it strikes me that a court would be unlikely to convict someone whose involvement was entirely innocent.

With respect to (A) and (B), the statute seems clearly to require intent - i.e. both knowledge and a purpose of furthering some unlawful act. I.e., with the intent of "promot[ing] the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or the intent of "conceal[ing] or disguis[ing] the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity." If you want to withdraw cash for any other purpose, you are not covered by this provision, no matter what your bank may say to you.

It is somewhat less clear what (C) means: "to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law." If the requirement applies only to banks and institutions, a depositor does not have a reporting requirement and therefore cannot "avoid" the requirement, no matter how his or her transaction is structured. This would respond to your concerns (which are reasonable) and also make sense of the statute's structure.

This is only a theory; for an answer you need to consult the case law (or at least the legislative history or the text of the USCA). But I don't think that the face of the statute, read in a vacuum, requires the conclusion that Jane Galt (or most of the commenters) have reached here.

Assuming the statute would apply to innocent behavior, there may also be something in the sentencing guidelines to indicate that the penalty should be lower; at a minimum, a judge might be entitled to order a downward departure. (Of course, given the AG's determination to punish judges for downward departures, and the recent trend in judicial appointments, this is somewhat less likely than it might be.)

"the Feds have abrogated my right to a non-insured bank account. While I agree that this still allows them to demand certain things to minimize moral hazard and other insurance fraud, that doesn't give them the right to tell me how to structure my withdrawals, any more than it gives them the right to tell me how to spend the money once I've withdrawn it."

I could be wrong but I believe it is still possible for a bank to not be a member of the FDIC and Federal Reserve. Just because no one (or only a handful) wants to actually do this doesn't mean that your 'right to have a non-insured' account has been abrogated.

"This is no different than the requirement that you have a license and insurance before you drive on a public way, whether or not you're a good driver. If you want to use the federally insured banking system, you have to play by the rules. Otherwise, stick it in your mattress."

These rules also apply to securities brokers. Want to buy a piece of a publically traded company? You're playing under the ridiculous fed rules. Do you think owning a share of Coca-cola or Gillette is a privelege, like driving?

Furthermore, take the hundreds of thousands of man-hours wasted by brokerage companies spent providing PATRIOT training for their employees, and it's quite wasteful.

Rob Lyman writes:

If this is about organized crime, why the heck are they going after Rush?

I would imagine that it might have something to do with his purchase of mass quantities of scheduled narcotics.

Jim English writes:

My grandfather used to walk around with about $10000 in his pocket at all times. He was a small business man and often paid for things in cash. He lived in a small rural town in Missouri where everybody knew him so robbery largely wasn't an issue. Why did he need so much? I honestly don't know. He wanted it that way is the best answer I can give. In this country that is all that should matter.

There's nothing in the statute that prohibits having $10K on you. All you have to do is fill out a form if you do any $10K+ transactions with a bank or other financial institution. The fact that a few people with idiosyncratic preferences don't want to be inconvenienced does not strike me as a sufficient reason for giving up this weapon against organized crime.

Bob Dobalina writes:

Do you think owning a share of Coca-cola or Gillette is a privelege, like driving?

Access to the public capital markets is a privilege, although I take the point that the privilege-for-use rationale is strained here.

Furthermore, take the hundreds of thousands of man-hours wasted by brokerage companies spent providing PATRIOT training for their employees, and it's quite wasteful.

Agreed that there are limits to the usefulness of these kind of requirements.

Alkali,

You say nobody needs 10K in cash. I say your opinion that nobody needs 10K in cash is meaningless in a free country. You say well its not illegal to have 10K. You fail to address why laws designed to fight organized crime should be used to hassle people who do what they see fit with their legally obtained money.

As I understand it, if you take more than 10K out of the bank the government must be notified. If you take less than 10K out of the bank the government must be notified. Just because Alkali can see no reason why someone would need 10K in cash she thinks this is just fine. But if it were $100 she would find it a problem. Why should the dollar amount matter? If somebody is suspected of being involved in organized crime get a warrant and look at their bank transactions. Why should non governmental organizations be forced to police society? Tell me Alkali, how is this different from libraries reporting on the books people read?

Jim English
Chicago

Jim English writes:

As I understand it, if you take more than 10K out of the bank the government must be notified. If you take less than 10K out of the bank the government must be notified.

Not true as to the second part, although the bank does have an obligation to report transactions that seem "structured" to avoid the reporting requirement (e.g., serial withdrawals of $9990). JG's example of two withdrawals of $7500 would probably not trigger the requirement unless she actually told the bank what she was up to.

Just because Alkali can see no reason why someone would need 10K in cash [he] thinks this is just fine. But if it were $100 she would find it a problem. Why should the dollar amount matter?

Because $100 cash is ordinary, $10K is unusual. There is nothing magical about the figure.

If somebody is suspected of being involved in organized crime get a warrant and look at their bank transactions.

The function is not prosecutorial; it's meant to obstruct the operations of criminal enterprises.

Why should non governmental organizations be forced to police society?

It happens. There are laws against leaving the scene of an accident. There are abuse reporting obligations on medical personnel and teachers.

Tell me Alkali, how is this different from libraries reporting on the books people read?

In theory, there are similarities. In practice, they're completely different, because the CTR requirement affects so few people and does not do so in a particularly intrusive fashion.

Alkali,

Your whole argument is based on your opinion that a $10000 cash transaction is large. While this may be true for people who live in large cities and are accustomed to using ATM's and credit cards, it is not true for everybody. In many parts of the country and with older people, large cash transactions are quite normal.

As for your final point, how is spying on ones finacial transactions not intrusive. Also, if the government only wanted libraries to report on the reading habits of a relativley small group would that make it OK. Or would it only be OK if it were a group that did not include you? Or only a group that you considered to have unusual reading habits?

"Rush addressed this issue on the air last week and according to him the bank requested he withdraw money in under 10k lots at a time and the matter has already been dealt with legally and the bank has paid a fine which is in line with B's post."

Or the bank told him about the reporting requirements and he structured his transactions in order to facilitate his law breaking. I've meet more than a few drug users who have an extra dose of paranoria about being watched in any form...not always rational.

"This Rush thing is just getting stupid. The 'under $10,000' bit was the fault of the bank, the fine proves it--it's bogus attempt at finding a charge to stick--like the notion that Rush should get busted for buying prescription drugs without a prescription."

Errrr, excuse me he was buying prescription drugs without a prescription!

"You can't bust someone for possession without the drugs. Crackheads don't get busted for crack possession simply because they're crackheads--even if they walk up to a cop, and say that they've purchased crack before, without the crack, there's no proof--no matter how much of a crackhead the person in question might be."

You are clearly a fool. People go to jail all the time for 'conspiracy to buy' even if they don't happen to be busted with drugs in their possession. In fact, considering the supposed volumn of drugs Rush was buying he may well have violated laws concerning 'intent to distribute'. You can go to jail for that even if you aquired the drugs for your own personal use.

Yes the cops drive by crackheads every day and don't bust them. But probably a majority of crackheads either have or will eventually get busted and spend some time with law enforcement. People brazenly violating drug laws are also busted.

"They're desperate to get some charge, some crime to stick. Because then maybe they can shut Rush up."

Yea I'm sure the state of Florida, which is run by Jeb Bush, made this all up so they could 'shut Rush up'.

Your whole argument is based on your opinion that a $10000 cash transaction is large. While this may be true for people who live in large cities and are accustomed to using ATM's and credit cards, it is not true for everybody. In many parts of the country and with older people, large cash transactions are quite normal.

I hear you, but would maintain that $10K+ is still a rarity overall: the vast majority of people live in areas where ATMs are available. The value of denying mobsters access to the legitimate financial system to my mind outweighs the minimal hassle on the few people who regularly take $10K in cash out of the bank.

As for your final point, how is spying on ones financial transactions not intrusive.

I agree that there is some level of intrusion, but look at the form. It asks: (1) who's the customer, (2) what's the bank, (3) how much money. The report is not available to the public. That does not strike me as very intrusive. If it asked what you intended to do with the money, that would be intrusive, along the lines of your library book hypothetical.

(Question: Doesn't the FBI follow up on all of these? Answer: No. 12 million of them are filed every year.)

Alkali,

They are very rare, but 12 million are filed a year. While I will grant you that this is few in the pool of finacial transactions, they are apparently not that rare. It seems many people have legimate reasons for taking $10K out of the bank.

As for your other point, would it be OK for the FBI to collect 12 million reports on what people are checking out of the library because they can't possibly follow up on all of them? It's not like they are asking all those people why they are checking out the books.

Jim English
Chicago

It seems many people have legimate reasons for taking $10K out of the bank.

I'm not saying they don't. I am saying that denying the mob and drug cartels easy access to American banks is worth the occasional inconvenience to those few people.

It seems many people have legimate reasons for taking $10K out of the bank.

I'm not saying they don't. I am saying that denying the mob and drug cartels easy access to American banks is worth the occasional inconvenience to those few people.

The structuring law does not apply just to cash withdrawals. In fact, the law was targeted at "smurfing."

Drug dealing, naturally, generates large amounts of cash in small ($100 or less) bills. Drug organizations have to do something with all that cash; there's just too much of it to physically take it all to Columbia or wherever. When the transaction reporting requirement was enacted, it led to the practice of "smurfing," whereby lots of low-level players would make cash deposits less than the amount which triggers the reporting requirement. To combat "smurfing" (and to make it harder to launder money) the structuring law was enacted. However, the law is written so broadly that it applies to people who are engaged in entirely legitimate activity but who care for the idea of the government invading their financial privacy.

Imagine an analogous scenario. Let's say the police set up roadblocks to interrogate every traveler for the purpose of ferreting out criminal activity that would otherwise go undetected (largely because there's no real victim). Many (if not most) people would be justifiably upset at that tactic, and would view it as an unreasonable intrusion on their rights to privacy and to travel. And the Supreme Court has held that such roadblocks do violate the Fourth Amendment (with two or three specific exceptions which nearly swallow the rule). Yet, that's exactly what the reporting requirement amounts to, although instead of stopping every traveler it stops every traveler driving a car worth more than, say, $30,000.

Imagine that there was also a law that made it illegal to route your travels around such roadblocks for the purpose of avoiding being hassled by the police. Again, I bet most folks would consider such a law unreasonable. Yet, that's what the structuring law does.

Do the reporting and structuring laws still seem so reasonable?

If a law designed to prohibit a narrow range of criminal activity can be applied broadly and often is, then it is the wrong law even if the intent, or some of the results for that matter, have been positive.

I really fail to see the value of enforcing money laundering as a crime in and of itself, given the dragnet of other available laws (conspiracy, for example) under which a launderer will typically be liable. Reporting requirements, okay, sure; if a "financial institution" customer seems to be playing regularly with large amounts of cash, then that information may be probable cause to believe some other illicit activity is involved.

But making the mere use of that cash into a potentially criminal activity of itself is nonsensical. Smells suspiciously like the same Benevolent Leader legal foolishness whereby a property owner can involuntarily forfeit property paid for by "drug money" even if said property owner was unaware of the fact.

> he may well have violated laws concerning
> 'intent to distribute'. You can go to jail for
> that even if you aquired the drugs for your own
> personal use.

Surely you aren't saying this with approval, are you? Surely in order to be convicted for intent an actual demonstration of the intent in question is required???

> Should ordinary citizens have to have a law degree to obey the law?

Something I've been wrestling with for a good long while now is the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. As more and more acts undergo the transformation from legal to illegal, and it becomes more and more difficult to be anything /other/ than ignorant of the law, the old principle begins to look less like a reasonable guideline and more like an invitation to totalitarianism.

The libertarian answer, no doubt, would be that the problem will solve itself if only the tangle of presently existing law can be shrunk to a more reasonable, minimalist size, at which point an ordinary citizen really /can/ be expected to know, or at least have no excuse for not knowing, what kinds of activities he can expect to be arrested, prosecuted, or sued for.

But /is/ there any other answer? Is it reasonable to continue to make this principle an ideal by which our judicial system functions in an age where it's not just impractical but arguably /impossible/ for a person of normal intelligence and education to be aware which of the ordinary everyday activity he's engaged in constitute criminal offenses, should someone get irritated enough to report them? Or is it an open invitation to anarchy to do anything /but/ follow that guiding ideal?

Alkali,

Lets sum up.

From your posts:
This rare event occurs 12 million times a year.
The FBI does not follow up on most of the reports.
They don't ask what the money is for.

From the Topic:
The law is ocassionally (sp?) used to harass people who have no connections to organized crime.

From other posters:
These harrassments are often politically motivated or used as a means to improve a prosecutor's resume.

Does this sound like an effective way to combat organized crime?

Jim English

"You are clearly a fool. People go to jail all the time for 'conspiracy to buy' even if they don't happen to be busted with drugs in their
possession."

Was I not clear? People DO NOT go to jail for saying that they've done drugs in the past. They don't. And that past includes the timeframe known as 'moments ago'. A crackhead, high, but without any crack or residue of crack, can be busted for a range of infractions, public intoxication, creating a disturbance, etc. But they can't be busted for possession.

'Conspiracy to buy' arrests take place in two instances. As part of a sting operation, or in the presense of a known seller, i.e. as a buy is being made. Not a month after a buy with no drugs present. Further 'conspiracy to buy' arrests DO NOT result in possession charges.

" In fact, considering the supposed volumn of drugs Rush was buying he may well have violated laws concerning 'intent to distribute'. You can go to jail for that even if you aquired the drugs for your own personal use."

Indeed, but this is sheer supposition on your part and again beggars the point that THERE ARE NO DRUGS. You can't bust someone for having piles of drugs when they don't have piles of drugs.

"Yea I'm sure the state of Florida, which is run by Jeb Bush, made this all up so they could 'shut Rush up'."

Actually the 'they' I was referring to is the media, and the left in general. The state of Florida seems to be following actual legal procedures, without the wild speculation so favored by those with an axe to grind

"I find it interesting that some people think this requirement is wrong, but at the same time, think Rush should be hammered because they don't like his views."

Bad laws will last a lot longer if rich & famous Republicans can get away with them, won't they?

"Rush addressed this issue on the air last week and according to him the bank requested he withdraw money in under 10k lots at a time and the matter has already been dealt with legally and the bank has paid a fine which is in line with B's post."

If I needed 18K in cash and the bank suggested I make two 9K withdrawals instead of one of 18K, I would ask why, as I suspect almost anyone would. And having gotten an explanation anyone would understand that the purpose was to dodge the reporting requirement. But not Rush "driven snow" Limbaugh.

The lengths gone to here to show why Limabaugh shouldn't go to jail for conduct most commenters would gladly imprison others for are laughable.

Your article comments that there are better places to put drug money, such as operation of automobiles and firearms. Firearms are an issue close to my heart. In what way do you feel firearms is in need of more legal control? What we need is less legal control. The control is costing more lives than it saves. The increase in firearm ownership is many multiples and firearm injuries and accidents are ever lower. Never low enough of course, but the rational for more control is not justifiable. You leave me in wonder as to your meaning.

The function is not prosecutorial; it's meant to obstruct the operations of criminal enterprises.

And how's that working?

The function is not prosecutorial; it's meant to obstruct the operations of criminal enterprises.

And how's that working?

The huge well of venture capital which did so much to launch the high tech boom in California has dried up, and money which used to flow back into the economy is now moving out of it. I used to know the investor relations man from a rather succesful mini-computer company, and the process by which the company was funded would now be as illegal as where the funds came from.

Thirty five years ago much drug dealing at the wholesale level was done by adventuresome entrepeneurs who themselves enjoyed getting high, but law enforcement has since effectively restricted such operations to the seriously criminal.

If I needed 18K in cash and the bank suggested I make two 9K withdrawals instead of one of 18K, I would ask why, as I suspect almost anyone would. And having gotten an explanation anyone would understand that the purpose was to dodge the reporting requirement. But not Rush "driven snow" Limbaugh.

Bank: You want to withdraw HOW much?
You: $18,000, I said.
Bank: Well, okay, but is it okay if we give that to you in two withdrawals of $9,000?
You: How's this? I have to fill out two withdrawal forms, right?
Bank: Sure, but if we can arrange this as two withdrawals of less than $10,000, it saves us some very complex and annoying paperwork.
You: *shrug* okay.

The lengths gone to here to show why Limabaugh shouldn't go to jail for conduct most commenters would gladly imprison others for are laughable.

Some of us would prefer not to see anyone liable to a broadly-written law of questionable merit, although I suppose there may be hypocrites among us. Merely asserting that they exist is insufficient, however.

For entertainment value, perhaps you can demonstrate which commentators have previously requested imprisonment for persons performing comparable acts of money laundering, and then hang them out dry?

Having entered this fray before over at the Outside the Beltway blog, let me say this: I have no particular love of Rush Limbaugh, despite some general conservative leanings of my own. That said, I can't fathom how he can be convicted of violating Sec. 1956, most especially the subpart cited by Kleiman: beyond intending to structure a transaction to avoid the reporting requirements, each subsection of sec. 1956 contains a number of other requirements before a conviction can be obtained. Specifically, the section cited by Kleiman is designed to authorize governmental "sting" operations and one requirement is that the property involved in the "financial transaction" be "represented [by a law enforcement officer] to be proceeds of unlawful activity or [represented by a law enforcement officer] to be used to conduct or facilitate unlawful activity. That element not being satisfied, I can't see how a conviction could possibly stand.

Perhaps there are other statutes which criminalize Limbaugh's conduct, but it doesn't fit sec. 1956.

Comments are Closed.