So if I understand this correctly I can't withdraw more than $10,000 without the bank reporting it to the government but if I give that amount or more to a candidate they don't have to report it?
85
This is why we have debit cards, suckers. Yes, I'd like privacy, but not if it causes more trouble for me. What bothers me are reports that police show up to confiscate a $5000 cash withdrawal, not even $10K. What's up with that; what's up with that???
14
Everyone knows that if you're going to withdraw large sums of money you need to first setup a sham foundation to wash the money through. Obvious.
35
"To be clear: It’s not illegal simply to take $8,000 out of the bank repeatedly."
So, what's with the misleading headline? Seams like this has almost become policy.
It is not illegal to withdraw under or over ten thousand dollars. You can do whatever you want with your money. Though as is the case in almost all large amount transactions including your not so large paycheck, casino wins, and all sorts of other stuff the government wants to know whats going on. Don't blame me.
So, what's with the misleading headline? Seams like this has almost become policy.
It is not illegal to withdraw under or over ten thousand dollars. You can do whatever you want with your money. Though as is the case in almost all large amount transactions including your not so large paycheck, casino wins, and all sorts of other stuff the government wants to know whats going on. Don't blame me.
1
I would dearly love to know how the government talked the people of a hundred years ago into believing that they had the right to know the details of your every financial transaction.
Now the people back then aren't like people today; they knew freedom and didn't yet have a SSN tattooed on their forearm nor the government spying on their actual thought process (web searches) and personal communications (email). People today are accustomed to being tax slaves. But not back then.
So how did they pull it off?
Now the people back then aren't like people today; they knew freedom and didn't yet have a SSN tattooed on their forearm nor the government spying on their actual thought process (web searches) and personal communications (email). People today are accustomed to being tax slaves. But not back then.
So how did they pull it off?
10
I recently took out 40K from a bank account. "Are you buying a house?" asked the cashier. "No, I'm buying stock." There: no lie. I didn't break my withdrawals up into smaller amounts. I didn't mislead. I offered the guy a stock tip and, if he had taken it, he would have been ten thousand dollars richer.
4
This is a put up job. It's about a lot more than Hastert withdrawing his own money and misleading the FBI.
11
So the Feds don't care that Hastert pushed legislation through Congress which made his family rich, nor that he is accused of molesting a student he "mentored" for at least four years, but they nab him for taking money out of his own bank accounts.
And you wonder why polls show that Americans have such a negative attitude towards their government?
And you wonder why polls show that Americans have such a negative attitude towards their government?
29
What this is really about is that there is no escape from government monitoring or control.
If you wish to pull your money out of your bank every Monday afternoon, say, $11K at a time to the tune of, say, $550K, and then one day get out of the country and go live forever is some little place, quiet far, far away, the government will stop you very early on in your effort. Which means now, you have really plan your escape to freedom, just can't board a plane and go suitcase in hand.
So bottom line: The money, the cash, is never really yours. Even though you might have earned it, working those many years, it is up to the government to decide the use limits and how it might be manipulated, not the man or woman who earned it.
This is all a put-up job. The money-laundering is a means of further government control over the citizens and their right to exercise their natural rights. (Where's Snowden when you need him?)
Wait till the government requires all money to be an iPhone click. Yeah, there will be instant government control. Can't hide that. Brave new "money" world in America coming and soon. Hope you enjoy the chains along with all the new apps.
If you wish to pull your money out of your bank every Monday afternoon, say, $11K at a time to the tune of, say, $550K, and then one day get out of the country and go live forever is some little place, quiet far, far away, the government will stop you very early on in your effort. Which means now, you have really plan your escape to freedom, just can't board a plane and go suitcase in hand.
So bottom line: The money, the cash, is never really yours. Even though you might have earned it, working those many years, it is up to the government to decide the use limits and how it might be manipulated, not the man or woman who earned it.
This is all a put-up job. The money-laundering is a means of further government control over the citizens and their right to exercise their natural rights. (Where's Snowden when you need him?)
Wait till the government requires all money to be an iPhone click. Yeah, there will be instant government control. Can't hide that. Brave new "money" world in America coming and soon. Hope you enjoy the chains along with all the new apps.
20
I would usually be the first in line to decry the government finding ways to make criminals out of us but in this case I do not share the outrage. Whether the law should exist and whether Hastert should be charged are two entirely different questions. The structuring law exists and Hastert knowingly broke it. When questioned by the FBI he chose to lie rather than tell the truth or even exercise his 5th amendment rights.
Since there was no underlying crime to the structuring I doubt Hastert would have faced an indictment if he hadn’t compounded the wrongdoing by making false statements to the FBI. In a way it is heartening to me to see that even someone as wealthy and connected as Hastert can’t break the law, blow off the FBI, and walk away from it.
Lastly, I have no sympathy for Hastert because he is the kind of person who should know better and has the resources to stay on the right side of the law. He could have hired a lawyer to devise a legal way to pay off his abuse victim. He could have hired a criminal defense attorney to chaperone his FBI questioning so he didn’t lie his way into an indictment. Instead he chose to brazen his way through all of it and now he has found that the law applies to him too.
Since there was no underlying crime to the structuring I doubt Hastert would have faced an indictment if he hadn’t compounded the wrongdoing by making false statements to the FBI. In a way it is heartening to me to see that even someone as wealthy and connected as Hastert can’t break the law, blow off the FBI, and walk away from it.
Lastly, I have no sympathy for Hastert because he is the kind of person who should know better and has the resources to stay on the right side of the law. He could have hired a lawyer to devise a legal way to pay off his abuse victim. He could have hired a criminal defense attorney to chaperone his FBI questioning so he didn’t lie his way into an indictment. Instead he chose to brazen his way through all of it and now he has found that the law applies to him too.
25
Why would Dennis Hastert want to conceal making payments at all if there were no crime? Doesnt he believe the government will protect his privacy?
5
Im glad I live in a free country or I would believe I lived in a dictatorship and was a slave...
6
For once, the Gray Lady isn't covering up the abuses of Obama's DOJ? What next, real investigative reporting no matter who's in the White House? Maybe there's hope for the world yet. Not holding my breath.
9
The Orwellian Big Brother has eyes and ears everywhere, even in the land of the free.
8
The USA was a bold experiment in life with minimal government control. The experiment and it's fundamental idea has been destroyed by greed, avarice and usury. It is time to close the book on the prior work and start over once again, nothing less will return us to the possibility of a representative republic as was originally envisioned!
15
It is not a crime to put cash or take cash from the bank. It has to be reported to FinCen and is used to track cash transactions that may be illegal activity. Bankers are charged with detecting suspicious activity. Many folks wishing to avoid the reporting requirement will take out $8,000 at one branch and go down the street and take out $8,000 at another branch of the same bank. Not realizing that the law requires all cash transactions be aggregated for reporting. Large companies on exchanges are largely exempt like Wal-Mart. Banks can also exempt certain customers after doing due diligence on the company and understanding its activity. Ironically one business that can not be exempted are law firms and attorneys. Too funny. Banks look for elder abuse, scams, and terrorists through transactions. Periodically they are required to respond to requests from the Feds looking to a person's accounts and can not tell anyone including the Board who is being researched. Banks, credit unions, casinos, and other financially-related organizations also report large cash transaction. Check cashers (you local convenience store) are required to have anti-money laundering programs. Converting cash and integrating it into the banking system is a drug dealers dream.
7
Drug dealers convert cash to credit. Result: Every "sizeable" cash transaction in America's banking system is monitored by the government. Two buildings come down in New York City, terrorism the suspect. Result: Every one of 340 million Americans lose his/her right to privacy and, further insult, among other capricious things, have to take off his/her shoes and belts before boarding an airliner.
The US government, as Orwell might have warned, protects the rights of citizens by limiting the rights of citizens. Turns out, the criminals and terrorists control the greater population through their own government. Doesn't get better.
The US government, as Orwell might have warned, protects the rights of citizens by limiting the rights of citizens. Turns out, the criminals and terrorists control the greater population through their own government. Doesn't get better.
35
People want to unlawfully avoid taxes yet want government benefits. How can we keep that up. If you want to totally avoid taxes don't use banks ever.
4
I don't know how a commercial real estate developer could build an office building with this law around.
It is common to keep the funds in one account and move enough from it weekly to cover the draws the subcontractors make. Some weeks I would move a quarter of a million dollars, the next a hundred thousand. This will go on for seven or eight months. Totally ridiculous.
It is common to keep the funds in one account and move enough from it weekly to cover the draws the subcontractors make. Some weeks I would move a quarter of a million dollars, the next a hundred thousand. This will go on for seven or eight months. Totally ridiculous.
6
It's all checks and account-to-account transfers, not cash. That's how.
15
Did you lie about it? No.
Was this standard operating procedure? Yes.
Did you deliberately go under the 10K ceiling to avoid detection? No.
There is nothing that says you can't move money around your accounts. The law is specific: you can't move it to avoid detection.
Was this standard operating procedure? Yes.
Did you deliberately go under the 10K ceiling to avoid detection? No.
There is nothing that says you can't move money around your accounts. The law is specific: you can't move it to avoid detection.
7
As much as I criticize this country, I have no problem paying my taxes because I am grateful to live here and want to support all the good things my taxes cover.
The comments written here seem to show that a lot of people want the freedom to evade paying taxes and want to resist all government efforts to track cash from banks.
Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways. You want to live in a civilized country? That means regulation and monitoring of money. From what I read here, the problem is even worse than I thought. It's not just the corporations hiding their money in offshore accounts, not just drug dealers and other criminals, it seems to be ordinary people who feel entitled to avoid responsibility for taxes...
The comments written here seem to show that a lot of people want the freedom to evade paying taxes and want to resist all government efforts to track cash from banks.
Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways. You want to live in a civilized country? That means regulation and monitoring of money. From what I read here, the problem is even worse than I thought. It's not just the corporations hiding their money in offshore accounts, not just drug dealers and other criminals, it seems to be ordinary people who feel entitled to avoid responsibility for taxes...
28
The law requiring reporting cash transactions over $10,000 has nothing to do with taxes. It was intended to identify criminal activity. It's now extending into many other parts of life, because $10,000 isn't a lot of money.
21
Your point of view is so Orwellian, or Bay Area, depending, don't know where to begin. More important, the government's monitoring of citizens' cash withdrawals or deposits has nothing to do with living "in a civilized country," i.e., so the more government snooping into private lives, the more civilized, the greater the dragnet, the greater the security. (Pelosi your Poli Sci. prof.?)
Suffice to say, unless the government has probable cause or a search warrant, stay out of our lives. Period.
Suffice to say, unless the government has probable cause or a search warrant, stay out of our lives. Period.
10
I'd like to see you try to build a commercial real estate project. Absolutely no way to avoid getting tangled up in this mess and pay the subcontractors and suppliers.
This is a very scary regulation especially if you have a bank account worth over 10K and you decide to withdraw. The United States has turned into a robber baron.
7
The irony is that if he did it above board, and the recipient declared it as a taxable gift, then everything would be legal. The coverup is always worse than the act itself.
As a lawmaker, Dennis Hastert knows better.
As a lawmaker, Dennis Hastert knows better.
16
As much opposed as I am to nearly everything Mr. Hastert stands for politically, I am even more opposed to the presumptuous intrusion of the government into a wholly legal transaction. Seeking and finding a narrow technicality and exploiting it simply to embarrass somebody is exactly what the Republicans did to former president Bill Clinton. If we resented it then, we ought to resent it now.
30
It seems like it would be better to take out the $20,000 and file the report. The government gets 15 million such reports a year, so it is very unlikely that they look at them unless they are targeting a specific individual for other reasons.
Even if they were after you, they couldn't get you for the money withdrawals. They'd have to come up with some real crime.
Even if they were after you, they couldn't get you for the money withdrawals. They'd have to come up with some real crime.
15
LASTLY, they arrest you, in a very public manner, with a lot of guns being waived around. They make sure to be interviewed, live at the scene of the arrest, and always remember to stress your embarrassing (insert non-crime here).
Notice this whole Hastert thing stresses the sexual thing that apparently was no crime and is only hinted at. Spending you own money is not a crime either. The "crime" is only how he removed his own money from his own bank account. NOW you can see that this all started with someone in power saying, "Let's get him!"
Remember, long long ago, when the whole "conviction-crime-arrest" thing worked the other way around? FIRST there had to be a crime??!!
Notice this whole Hastert thing stresses the sexual thing that apparently was no crime and is only hinted at. Spending you own money is not a crime either. The "crime" is only how he removed his own money from his own bank account. NOW you can see that this all started with someone in power saying, "Let's get him!"
Remember, long long ago, when the whole "conviction-crime-arrest" thing worked the other way around? FIRST there had to be a crime??!!
19
It is more than ridiculous to criminalize bank withdrawals on the basis of what the doer was thinking.
If there is a pattern of bank withdrawals that the legislators are determined to make illegal, let them pass a law to that effect!
Otherwise, it would be far better to charge people with what they actually did, and not on the basis of what they were thinking when they did something legal.
If there is a pattern of bank withdrawals that the legislators are determined to make illegal, let them pass a law to that effect!
Otherwise, it would be far better to charge people with what they actually did, and not on the basis of what they were thinking when they did something legal.
17
We are all safer when we give up just a little bit of our freedom and privacy. Lets just leave it to the FBI to decide when making withdrawals is a crime.
All crime is illegal on the basis of what the person is thinking. If I stole from you, but I had no intent to take items without paying, then I'm not actually guilty. (Regardless of my knowledge of the law.)
Funny, now that I think about it, I actually did this just last weekend. I failed to put a greeting card on the checkout belt at the grocery store. Nobody noticed. I walked out of the store with the card still in the basket. (I never took the card, and left it there in the lot with the basket.) But suppose I was caught after walking out. Because I did not intend to commit the act, I would not be guilty of shoplifting. Why? Because of what I was thinking. I had no "mens rea".
Funny, now that I think about it, I actually did this just last weekend. I failed to put a greeting card on the checkout belt at the grocery store. Nobody noticed. I walked out of the store with the card still in the basket. (I never took the card, and left it there in the lot with the basket.) But suppose I was caught after walking out. Because I did not intend to commit the act, I would not be guilty of shoplifting. Why? Because of what I was thinking. I had no "mens rea".
1
If removing cash from your bank account is criminal, we are in deep do-do regardless what political party you belong to.
If the D's can do it to the R's, the R's can/will do it to the D's in short order.
Just like the IRS targeting scandal. You Dems know its wrong but sit on your hands now. Wait till the pendulum swings, you're going to holler to high Heavens.
If the D's can do it to the R's, the R's can/will do it to the D's in short order.
Just like the IRS targeting scandal. You Dems know its wrong but sit on your hands now. Wait till the pendulum swings, you're going to holler to high Heavens.
6
Do you honestly believe that? I doubt it?
3
Fortunately, withdrawing your own cash isn't criminal. Intentionally structuring transactions to avoid IRS reporting is illegal. (Not that I'm a big fan of the law.)
1
Hang on to your seats, you're in for a wild ride in the near future. The old "free" America is gone, and the new "Global" America has replaced it with UN Treaties, Laws, TTP, and so on Clinton and Bush quietly signed the "North American Union" deal while hardly anyone paid attention. This so-called over-reach by the Feds is the new norm. Banks are currently laying the groundwork for a cashless economy, which will make this story a mute point.
7
Stateside Americans may soon get a taste of the draconian reporting laws inflicted upon overseas Americans by Congress. We have to file FBAR and FINCEN forms every year, detailing the maximum daily balance in each financial account (e.g. bank, individual stocks, trading accounts), provide all financial account numbers and postal addresses for each. I look forward to the day when every stateside American has to go through all their statements to report the maximum daily balance - if you're out by just one dollar, the law empowers the IRS to issue a fine equivalent to one-half of the highest daily balance for that tax year plus other penalties.
8
The Bank Secrecy Act was passed in 1970. "Congress banned structuring in 1986." I think the whole "near future' has come and gone.
What Mr Hastert did has been a crime for 45 years. Since the World Trade Center attack in 2001 financial transactions have been monitored with more care--and with good reasons--to prevent money from being transferred to illegal or terrorist groups.
Mr. Hastert could simply have paid his "hush" money by check or set up a phoney account to avoid what he is charged with doing. Of course as the adult in the relationship he needed to keep hidden, he could just have behaved with honor and none of the financial transactions would have been necessary.
What Mr Hastert did has been a crime for 45 years. Since the World Trade Center attack in 2001 financial transactions have been monitored with more care--and with good reasons--to prevent money from being transferred to illegal or terrorist groups.
Mr. Hastert could simply have paid his "hush" money by check or set up a phoney account to avoid what he is charged with doing. Of course as the adult in the relationship he needed to keep hidden, he could just have behaved with honor and none of the financial transactions would have been necessary.
5
There was an old guy in the news not too long ago from South Carolina, I believe who had a small country convenience store that he ran, and made semi regular deposits thru the year that amounted to less than 10,000 each.
I mean, we are talking a small business, dealing almost entirely in cash. His whole life was in this business, and I believe he had just over $100,000 in his life savings in the bank.
The feds, using this law, confiscated his entire life savings because he had made regular deposits of less than 10,000. Didn't charge him with anything, just took his money, because they could.
The guy had to get a lawyer, and took the feds to court. The feds agreed that they could not prove that he had done anything wrong to get the money and argued that they didn't have to give it back. They then offered to give him half his money back if he agreed to drop the lawsuit.
He refused, and the court ordered the feds to pay him back. According to his lawyer, it could be years before he actually gets his money back.
I mean, we are talking a small business, dealing almost entirely in cash. His whole life was in this business, and I believe he had just over $100,000 in his life savings in the bank.
The feds, using this law, confiscated his entire life savings because he had made regular deposits of less than 10,000. Didn't charge him with anything, just took his money, because they could.
The guy had to get a lawyer, and took the feds to court. The feds agreed that they could not prove that he had done anything wrong to get the money and argued that they didn't have to give it back. They then offered to give him half his money back if he agreed to drop the lawsuit.
He refused, and the court ordered the feds to pay him back. According to his lawyer, it could be years before he actually gets his money back.
43
It's not deposits, mr I believe in rumors. It's withdrawals.
2
I think it's both, actually. Hastert didn't do both, but the structuring law applies to both.
1
Wrongo Bongo
Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/irs-seizes-life-savings-for-deposits-under-10...
Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/irs-seizes-life-savings-for-deposits-under-10...
So far the accusations against this man are hearsay, and I frankly don't want to hear any more until the "news" is more substantial. As far as what he was covering up, either tell it all including names or leave it alone. This man is being indicted by word of mouth.
5
Not one bank executive guilty of fraud, theft or falsely reporting those activities has gone to jail - but some joe who takes out a few thousand too often ...
27
The Times reported that Hastert was "paying a former student hundreds of thousands of dollars to not say publicly that Mr. Hastert had sexually abused him decades ago." But if that student died in 1995, did the payments then stop? Is there no statute of limitations for the crime of "taking money out of the bank the wrong way"?
4
The former student receiving the cash is not the same former student who died in 1995. The one receiving the cash is Individual A, whose identity we don't know.
2
The sister of the student who died 20 years ago believes that somebody ELSE was extorting Denny Hastert. Either somebody else who knew about it, or somebody else who was also abused.
Standard and Poor's, Moody's lied to investors about the quality of mortgage backed securities they ostensibly rated Triple A and that is protected free speech.
If thee or me lie to a FBI agent or a policeman it is not free speech, it is a crime.
As my late, sainted mother was fond of saying, "not one word without a lawyer".
If thee or me lie to a FBI agent or a policeman it is not free speech, it is a crime.
As my late, sainted mother was fond of saying, "not one word without a lawyer".
17
Jim Copland: “The criminal provisions there do have strong mens rea (criminal intent) requirements... So this is quite unlike many of the regulatory crimes that can ensnare the unsophisticated."
That's ridiculous and I expect better from the Manhattan Institute. This "crime" is so mundane that mens rea is meaningless. Who wouldn't try to avoid paperwork if possible. Mens rea doesn't require you to know that it's a crime to withdrawal $10,000 to avoid the paperwork, it just requires that you intended to do so.
This scenario happens all the time:
---------------------------------------------------
Grandma Felon: "I'd like to withdraw $11,000 to buy a gift for my grandson"
Teller: "Ok, but I'll have to file paperwork for transactions over $10,000"
Grandma Felon: "Oh, then make that two $5,500 withdrawals"
Not only is that a felony, but when grandma tells the FBI that she did two transactions because she didn't want the hassle of the paperwork, she's just CONFESSED to the crime, mens rea is fully satisfied and it's up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to throw her in the slammer for 3 - 5 years.
People often assume that in totalitarian states, the police just ignore the law. More often, the laws are written so broadly that the police (or prosecutors) have complete discretion.
So no prosecutor will throw grandma in prison, but what if he doesn't like you? Maybe you post unpopular opinions on the web or belong to the wrong ethnic group?
Mercy
That's ridiculous and I expect better from the Manhattan Institute. This "crime" is so mundane that mens rea is meaningless. Who wouldn't try to avoid paperwork if possible. Mens rea doesn't require you to know that it's a crime to withdrawal $10,000 to avoid the paperwork, it just requires that you intended to do so.
This scenario happens all the time:
---------------------------------------------------
Grandma Felon: "I'd like to withdraw $11,000 to buy a gift for my grandson"
Teller: "Ok, but I'll have to file paperwork for transactions over $10,000"
Grandma Felon: "Oh, then make that two $5,500 withdrawals"
Not only is that a felony, but when grandma tells the FBI that she did two transactions because she didn't want the hassle of the paperwork, she's just CONFESSED to the crime, mens rea is fully satisfied and it's up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to throw her in the slammer for 3 - 5 years.
People often assume that in totalitarian states, the police just ignore the law. More often, the laws are written so broadly that the police (or prosecutors) have complete discretion.
So no prosecutor will throw grandma in prison, but what if he doesn't like you? Maybe you post unpopular opinions on the web or belong to the wrong ethnic group?
Mercy
34
Who does the filing? I always thought it was the banks, with some standard reporting system, but much of the reporting on this topic implies that individuals should be fill out forms (paper?) and sending them somewhere.
1
The bank does the filing, it's pretty simple: name and address of the individual and/or business, social security number, amount of cash, plus the name, address and id of the bank.
4
This law is a terrible invasion of our right to privacy, and to spend money we have lawfully earned. And look how it deprived us of the excellent services of Mr. Spitzer. (Oh, the wall st. banksters hated him.)
But there's little of our liberty left now. (N.b., I've always voted Democratic, and twice for Mr. O. "fool me twice")
But the recipient of damages for injury, from an insurace company or a negligent driver out of his pocket, does not normally owe tax on damages to make him whole. Psychic injury perhaps here involved is still an injury. Excessive? Maybe, if IRS proves it.
But there's little of our liberty left now. (N.b., I've always voted Democratic, and twice for Mr. O. "fool me twice")
But the recipient of damages for injury, from an insurace company or a negligent driver out of his pocket, does not normally owe tax on damages to make him whole. Psychic injury perhaps here involved is still an injury. Excessive? Maybe, if IRS proves it.
8
People who bemoan the loss of our liberties are hard pressed to come up with one example of a liberty they had and relied on, but that was taken away from them. I can't think of a single liberty I had and enjoyed in the 1950's that I don't have now.
Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards now Denny Hastert cannot move their own money without getting caught.
Any reasonably sentient teenager in Everglades City, Key West or Miami could tell them how.
Like, buy T-bills and hand them over. Buy the person a very nice house. Buy really extravagant jewelry and give it to them. Take it out in a lump sum and claim a devastating, extremely unlucky gambling jones.
Any reasonably sentient teenager in Everglades City, Key West or Miami could tell them how.
Like, buy T-bills and hand them over. Buy the person a very nice house. Buy really extravagant jewelry and give it to them. Take it out in a lump sum and claim a devastating, extremely unlucky gambling jones.
8
I know this is a discussion of our many tax laws. But my question is why wasn't this molestation reported by the victim or his family sooner? Now that the statute of limitations has expired, there is no punishment to fit the crime. Perhaps the only way forward was to try to find recourse in the tax code. Should we assume that nothing took place? Clearly Mr. Hassert did not want this information to become general knowledge at the time it happened or now. I am wondering how the victim feels about all this.
1
I can't speak for the victim in this case. I can however tell you that I was molested for years by a teacher. It started when I was 11. I never told anyone, and dealt with it in silence. Thought I was fine for years, and never wanted to say anything about it - just put it behind me. It was only when I had children of my own that I began to have extreme anxiety about the possibility of it happening to them that I finally told my family about it (in my 30's). Though it was well past the statute of limitations, I still (when I got up enough courage) went and spoke with the police. Not because I thought he would face any justice for what he did to me, but because if God forbid he's still doing it and any kid went to the police to report it, I could vouch for the fact that he has done this in the past. So on behalf of other victims of abuse, please don't assume that because they didn't speak about it immediately, that nothing took place. It simply takes some people longer than others to fully deal with it.
18
"It's not illegal simply to take $8000 out of the bank repeatedly" and yet "a person who engages in structuring. (making repeated four figure cash withdrawals) ..despite having no intention of using the money for an illegal purpose, is committing a crime."
Which is it? If you have even heard about the reporting requirement than taking your own money out of the bank is a crime it seems.
Which is it? If you have even heard about the reporting requirement than taking your own money out of the bank is a crime it seems.
10
Making repeated withdrawals of $8000 for an arbitrary reason (or none at all) is not a crime. Making repeated withdrawals of ONLY $8000 when you would otherwise withdraw more, but prefer to avoid IRS reporting requirements that kick in at $10,000 IS a crime.
It's legal BUT it is a thought crime. Kind of like when Christina Hoff Summers speaks on a campus - legal but sorta-kinda unCool, therefore, illegal. If Joseph Goebbels was still around, he could make sense of it.
Based on this article, I am pretty sure some of my odd banking habits have been reported to the FBI by now. You see, I do my personal banking at a credit union, and my small business banking at one of the giant banks.
I noticed sometime ago that the national bank is a fee machine, $15 for all sorts of money coming In or going out, charges which at the end of the day, amounts to much more than the interest they pay me (no wonder Warren Buffett is very rich ;-), nice gig of having negative cost of money.
Because of the above, and also because I sometimes don't write a check to myself quick enough for the 5 day clear for when I need it personally, I have often gone to the giant bank and withdrawn sometimes $8k etc in cash and drove it to the CU for deposit, the locations are less than 2 miles apart. 15 minutes that save me $15 bucks, as it were. I have noticed the tellers look at me funny.
I noticed sometime ago that the national bank is a fee machine, $15 for all sorts of money coming In or going out, charges which at the end of the day, amounts to much more than the interest they pay me (no wonder Warren Buffett is very rich ;-), nice gig of having negative cost of money.
Because of the above, and also because I sometimes don't write a check to myself quick enough for the 5 day clear for when I need it personally, I have often gone to the giant bank and withdrawn sometimes $8k etc in cash and drove it to the CU for deposit, the locations are less than 2 miles apart. 15 minutes that save me $15 bucks, as it were. I have noticed the tellers look at me funny.
3
I thought only lying under other in court was illegal, but I guess lying to the police is now illegal.
1
Lying to the police constitutes obstruction of justice. It's been illegal for a long time.
1
Lying to the FBI is always illegal. Whether you can lie legally to the police, I don't know.
1
All these petty laws are put in place precisely to be tyrannical. Lots of people use large cash transactions for perfectly legitimate reasons. Hastert was busted for purely political reasons, which I even understand. It's gotta gaul LGBT activists that a leading GOP figure, officially against gay marriage, spent years hiding his gay relationships. But this is an abuse of criminal law prosecution, and it was only done because it was the only way to destroy Hastert that would stick. It's not making our society safer from crime. It's making it harder for small businesses to operate.
10
...But if you're poor in Kansas, you can't withdraw more than $20 at a time, and incur fees from the bank for the privilege of doing it...
9
Open market competition will solve that problem. Kansas needs more bankers. Sjhip 'em some from Wall Street?
Dennis Hastert is a disgusting person. But the structuring law is more disgusting. It makes it a violation of the law to avoid violating the law.
10
The US government typically overblows things in its criminal courts. This is how it obtains guilty pleas. It doesn't actually want anyone to have a fair trial. It wants to win as easily as possible, even if that means lying, cheating, and bullying. It is somewhat predictable that it would not just be making things up.
The guy took money out of the bank. Legal. He paid it to someone under a settlement agreement. Legal. The settlement agreement contained a confidentiality clause. Also legal.
Nevertheless, the US government is threatening him with life in prison. Life in prison for legal activity. Think about that.
Anyone who is not concerned about this turn of events, and this is not an isolated incident, is an idiot. We are in treacherous times. This is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave. We are now back in pre-revolutionary times in which the King could do whatever he wanted.
The guy took money out of the bank. Legal. He paid it to someone under a settlement agreement. Legal. The settlement agreement contained a confidentiality clause. Also legal.
Nevertheless, the US government is threatening him with life in prison. Life in prison for legal activity. Think about that.
Anyone who is not concerned about this turn of events, and this is not an isolated incident, is an idiot. We are in treacherous times. This is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave. We are now back in pre-revolutionary times in which the King could do whatever he wanted.
15
The article is ignoring the fact that with the establishment of FinCen there are more thresholds and reporting requirements put on banks and other financial institutions. A SAR can be filed for any amount; it's the pattern of activity detected by the bank, no the amount, that triggers a SAR.
2
Years ago a Norfolk, Virginia very, very wealthy, self made, business creator/owner had his home invaded by the police on some charge totally unrelated to money. The police found a box with $50,000 cash in a closet. It was confiscated and never returned.
12
We wondered where the Z-28 Super-speedies came from for the anti-drug program!!
"$10,000 today is equivalent to just $1,640 in 1970 dollars."
THIS is the real crime: debasement of our wealth via the Federal Reserve.
THIS is the real crime: debasement of our wealth via the Federal Reserve.
16
4.1% annual inflation really is not that big a deal. It keeps money flowing through the economy, stimulating its use. Don't keep your wealth in cash. Regardless, we're also paid a lot more, too. Median household income in 1970 was $7559. Today it's about $50,000, which is MORE than inflation, which would be $46,091. We also have higher quality goods for that same money.
1
A banker friend of mine told me once that the banks are only required to fill out a report and said report is kept on file at the bank. It's at the banks discretion to report the transactions to the authorities for further investigation. The reports simply provide the paper trail. One cash transaction over 10k earns you a report. Multiple transactions over 10k earn you a call/visit from authorities once the bank tattles on you. Specific bank policy varies widely. Any bankers out there want to confirm?
3
Several years ago, I came into an inheritance of which a small portion was in cash which was found in the decedent's house. When I asked my bank teller what the trigger amount was for reporting cash deposits, she said the law prevented her from telling me. Amazed, I said, I can find it on my smartphone in two minutes. She said, you will have to do that as I am not allowed to tell you the trigger amount.
My bank could not tell its own customer what the law was.
My bank could not tell its own customer what the law was.
8
Why would knowing the reporting trigger matter? Would you structure your deposit to avoid IRS reporting? Why? (And it's the very structuring that's illegal.)
Worry all you want about what he may or may not have done.
I worry more about the loss to our business community. Seems too many of our brightest minds for business (as evidenced by going in worth thousands and leaving worth millions) are lulled away by politics.
On a serious note, how did a former school teacher have an extra 3+ million lying around for paying bribes? (I have read where it came from. I am saying it should not happen). This isn't limited to Ds or Rs, it is an American problem.
I worry more about the loss to our business community. Seems too many of our brightest minds for business (as evidenced by going in worth thousands and leaving worth millions) are lulled away by politics.
On a serious note, how did a former school teacher have an extra 3+ million lying around for paying bribes? (I have read where it came from. I am saying it should not happen). This isn't limited to Ds or Rs, it is an American problem.
3
It should not be a crime. It was his money.
4
and at what time does it become illegal to blackmail someone for the tune of $3.5 million
1
Obviously that little detail isn't important, it is maintaining privacy from the government that's TRULY EVIL, at least according to the government.
The Feds put Al Capone away based on income tax evasion not the many other crimes including murder that he was involved in.
Mr. Hastert has been caught on a banking law but like Al Capone has many other real crimes to answer for if they were to come out. Lobbying isn`t a crime in the USA but is in most democracies & nowhere is it the powerhouse that exists in the USA.
Mr. Hastert has been caught on a banking law but like Al Capone has many other real crimes to answer for if they were to come out. Lobbying isn`t a crime in the USA but is in most democracies & nowhere is it the powerhouse that exists in the USA.
You would think the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would have more on their plate than going after somebody taking cash out of his own bank account. How many people in Hollywood or New York settled lawsuits over rape cases or other wrongdoing that were still ripe for prosecution? Michael Jackson paid his victims with big checks to silence them and it was perfectly fine with everybody - including law enforcement (until somebody decided not to settle). Whatever Hastert did - and it seems like it was something pretty horrible - he and his victim each got what they wanted. This was a commercial transaction, over time, to conceal something neither wanted out. Now Hastert faces the potential of jail time - not for the action (the statute of limitations is long gone) - but for entering into an agreement to pay people to keep things quiet. Hastert is being charged with lying to the FBI too - you should be allowed to lie to people who are allowed to lie to you! If an FBI agent lies to a suspect during questioning and slips him up, the lie is perfectly acceptable. If the FBI is legally permitted to lie to suspects, suspects should be allowed to lie to them. Enough government in banking transactions and I hate nosey tellers - you should remove your money from that bank.
5
If the law was designed to stop money laundering, then the government should have to prove money laundering. Period. How is it that this has morphed into the ability of the government to throw people in jail who are actually having crimes committed against THEM? The real criminals here seem to be the government agencies.
5
If there has ever been political persecution this is it.
"about 15 million cash transaction reports are filed annually for transactions over $10,000, plus about 1.6 million reports of otherwise suspicious transactions below $10,000"........and they choose to nit pick Hastert....what could it be but political?
"about 15 million cash transaction reports are filed annually for transactions over $10,000, plus about 1.6 million reports of otherwise suspicious transactions below $10,000"........and they choose to nit pick Hastert....what could it be but political?
3
It still won't be as much tax money as Al Sharpton owes.
7
Extortion is still a crime and the extortionist is not being prosecuted in this case to my knowledge. You have to wonder why, but not for very long.
One also has to wonder how anyone caught onto Mr. Hastert's so called 'structured' withdrawals if they didn't measure up to the reporting requirement threshold. Who dropped the dime and did that person violate a confidentiality requirement?
BTW, how is that Lois Lerner IRS prosecution coming along? Yeah, that's what I thought.
One also has to wonder how anyone caught onto Mr. Hastert's so called 'structured' withdrawals if they didn't measure up to the reporting requirement threshold. Who dropped the dime and did that person violate a confidentiality requirement?
BTW, how is that Lois Lerner IRS prosecution coming along? Yeah, that's what I thought.
2
Well, enough about this; let's hear some more about Marco Rubio's four traffic tickets!
5
Ask Martha Stewart about whether it makes sense to make it illegal to lie to federal investigators, even when you are not under oath. That's what she went to jail for, remember?
4
So.., Martha Stewart all over again?
3
It sure is amazing what happened to the US after Richard Nixon declared war on cannabis because he blamed it for the people who saw him as a paranoid schizophrenic.
2
There are 3 rules for dealing with Federal investigators, such as the F.B.I.:
1) don't lie to the Feds
2) don't lie to the Feds
3) don't lie to the Feds
If you break any of the above rules, the Feds can find some obscure law to charge you with. They can make your life a living hell.
In this case, J. Dennis Hastert is finished in politics. It doesn't matter what he says, or what happens to him, or his Federal government charges from here on out. He's through. Child molestation allegations are political kryptonite
What always surprises me about cases like Hastert's, which involve astute politicians who have played the game successfully for years, is that they believe the rules don't apply to them. (See the 3 rules above) If he had come clean with the F.B.I. about what he was withdrawing the money for, then enlisted their help because he was being blackmailed, who knows how the F.B.I. might have responded? They may have helped him keep the whole story on the down-low because extortion is illegal. His past sexual activities may or may not be actionable, but his current lying and hiding of what he was doing are actionable.
Others here are bothered by these bank withdrawal laws, but I think they are more helpful in finding criminal activity than they are hurtful to our privacy. If you are withdrawing large amounts of cash on a regular basis, you should rethink your business and its financial strategies. Is what you are doing legal?
7
Lying to Stalin was always the worst crime.
1
As he notes, a person who engages in structuring because of “a simple aversion to being monitored,” despite having no intention of using the money for an illegal purpose, is committing a crime.
Yikes!
I withdrew $6,000.00 0f my own money from my checking account in 2014.
It could just as easily have been $10,000.00.
I took it home and put it in one of my hi-topped Converse All-Star sneakers for safe-keeping.
I wanted to try paying just with cash as an experiment.
I got judged incompetent in a Tucson, Arizona court over the alleged crime of playing my radio too loud.
Shudder to think what would have become of me if I had kept up this 'All-Star sneaker practice'.
Yikes!
I withdrew $6,000.00 0f my own money from my checking account in 2014.
It could just as easily have been $10,000.00.
I took it home and put it in one of my hi-topped Converse All-Star sneakers for safe-keeping.
I wanted to try paying just with cash as an experiment.
I got judged incompetent in a Tucson, Arizona court over the alleged crime of playing my radio too loud.
Shudder to think what would have become of me if I had kept up this 'All-Star sneaker practice'.
Remember that maximum security prison in Colorado where the urban terrors guys end up?
There are lots of perfectly legal things I might spend ten thousand dollars on that I might not want to be public knowledge. But the government has the right to troll through your private banking records and demand to know what you spend your money on. If you don't tell them the truth, they can charge you with a crime, even if there is no evidence you have committed a crime. Give this two minutes of thought, because it is unconstitutional.
If there is evidence that Dennis Hastert may be guilty of sexual abuse of a teenager--an actual crime--then charge him with that. Most states have special statute of limitations extension laws for child abuse allegations. What the prosecutor chose to do instead, is charge him with lying about bank withdrawals, and then the press magically! learns that Hastert had been paying a blackmailer (scandal!). He is not running for office. What if he happens to be innocent of the sex abuse? Too bad--he is now branded forever in the press.
If there is evidence that Dennis Hastert may be guilty of sexual abuse of a teenager--an actual crime--then charge him with that. Most states have special statute of limitations extension laws for child abuse allegations. What the prosecutor chose to do instead, is charge him with lying about bank withdrawals, and then the press magically! learns that Hastert had been paying a blackmailer (scandal!). He is not running for office. What if he happens to be innocent of the sex abuse? Too bad--he is now branded forever in the press.
3
Stateside Americans are about to get a taste of the draconian reporting laws inflicted upon overseas Americans by Congress. We have to file FBAR and FINCEN forms every year, detailing the maximum daily balance in each financial account (e.g. bank, individual stocks, trading accounts), provide all financial account numbers and postal addresses for each. I look forward to the day when every stateside American has to go through all their statements to report the maximum daily balance - if you're out by just one dollar, the law empowers the IRS to issue a fine equivalent to one-half of the highest daily balance for that tax year plus other penalties. The laws behind these invasive reporting requirements grant the Feds to scrutinize all financial transactions by Americans in their foreign country-of-residence, right down to credit card accounts. It is little wonder that overseas Americans overseas are being shut out of local businesses, having their accounts shut down by their local financial institutions, and their non-American partners/spouses forcing the closure of joint accounts as the Feds consider that 100% (not 50%) of assets in a joint account can be confiscated.
Whatever you think iof our laws regarding structuring and lying to the FBI, those are our laws. Passed by Congress, of which Mr. Hastert was a longtime member. He knew these particular and chose to break them. Period, end of story. If some John Q Public had done these things, Mr. Hastert would have wanted the book thrown at him. Whine all you want but the issue is that simple.
7
This may be outrageous and unconstitutional. But it's also a karmic comeuppance for a normal politician, even maybe a decent guy for the last few decades, who nonetheless played along with the party of torture, maimed veterans, and as many as 200,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
1
The real crime here, to date, is the extortion of Hastert. His potential crimes are a different story.
Hastert, once viewed as that really nice former coach from Illinois, is a man who helped wreck Washington, DC, and any potential for compromise in the House of Representatives. ALL of his misdeeds should be examined and corrections taken, where possible.
Hastert, along with Boehner, Gingrich and DeLay, put in a vital component that prevents almost any compromise in the House. His rule, now the Hastert/Boehner Rule, holds that no legislation may reach the floor of the House without the support of a majority of Republicans. It means give and take negotiations are nearly impossible, because there would be too many congresspeople with whom negotiations would be required.
This clever little rule is the engine behind the mess that we have seen in the House since the elections of 2010. It prevents, or avoids, legislators from taking a stand publicly for or against specific bills.
With the allegations that Hastert abused one or more of his students, we can now look back on his rise to Speaker in January, 1999, as being at least partially the result of sexual misconduct allegations against everyone in Republican leadership at the time: Gingrich acknowledged he was having an affair while married at the time, Bob Livingston stepped aside from consideration saying he had affairs while married, Tom DeLay, it was well known, could not withstand the public attention that being elected Speaker would entail and, now, Hastert, the man who was elected because he was thought to be "clean".
Hastert, along with Boehner, Gingrich and DeLay, put in a vital component that prevents almost any compromise in the House. His rule, now the Hastert/Boehner Rule, holds that no legislation may reach the floor of the House without the support of a majority of Republicans. It means give and take negotiations are nearly impossible, because there would be too many congresspeople with whom negotiations would be required.
This clever little rule is the engine behind the mess that we have seen in the House since the elections of 2010. It prevents, or avoids, legislators from taking a stand publicly for or against specific bills.
With the allegations that Hastert abused one or more of his students, we can now look back on his rise to Speaker in January, 1999, as being at least partially the result of sexual misconduct allegations against everyone in Republican leadership at the time: Gingrich acknowledged he was having an affair while married at the time, Bob Livingston stepped aside from consideration saying he had affairs while married, Tom DeLay, it was well known, could not withstand the public attention that being elected Speaker would entail and, now, Hastert, the man who was elected because he was thought to be "clean".
6
Hastert (obviously a disgrace, but I have to say this, lest someone accuse me of defending him) could go to trial and argue that he was being extorted as a defense. Unfortunately, the prosecution itself is a form of extortion, because he'll have to take a plea or admit to the allegations in court. One wonders if a former Democrat Speaker would be facing these charges.
2
If Hastert just formed a corporation, call it something say, "The Hastert Global Initiative" he could spend his money for what ever unsavory activity he wishes with out getting involved in any federal unpleasantness.
5
And if you withdraw a couple of thousand dollars in cash and are stopped by law enforcement on the way home all they have to do to confiscate the cash is suspect that the cash is somehow involved in an illegal transaction. They do not have to charge you with a crime in order to keep the money. They just get to keep because they said so. It does not have to meet a specific threshold for suspicion. They do not have to accept your explanation about why you have so much cash in your possession. All they have to do is think that the amount of cash you have is too much for you to have obtained through legal means. It's called asset forfeiture and law enforcement loves it. The chief of police in the town just to the west of me calls it "pennies from heaven."
8
It appears that Hastert's desire to avoid exposure for what he was doing led to exposure not only for what he was doing in making payments, but for his entire life history, destroying what had been a stellar image heretofore. If he had paid by check and marked the checks "for services rendered" or even "legal settlement", he would likely never have been questioned.
Hastert stands discredited by his indictment and the subsequent disclosures both as a politician and a human being. As it stands now, his trial will not be about his alleged serious crimes, but over the relatively minor "sin" of trying to bring less attention to his cash withdrawals.
Given Hastert's new, lowly status, it is also time to get rid of the Hastert/Boehner rule in the House of Representatives, the 900 pound gorilla that has gridblocked the House since the Republicans can back to power following the 2010 elections. This made up rule (it not part of official procedural policy) hold that NO BILL may reach the floor of the House unless a majority of Republicans support it. This dastardly imposition, originally put in place by one man, Hastert, means that compromise in the House is not possible because 20 or 30 Republicans CAN'T join with the Democrats to approve a bill because it would not be allowed on the floor for a vote in the first place.
The Hastert Rule is now the Boehner Rule and the Speaker should answer for its consequences in destroying compromise in Washington, DC.
Hastert stands discredited by his indictment and the subsequent disclosures both as a politician and a human being. As it stands now, his trial will not be about his alleged serious crimes, but over the relatively minor "sin" of trying to bring less attention to his cash withdrawals.
Given Hastert's new, lowly status, it is also time to get rid of the Hastert/Boehner rule in the House of Representatives, the 900 pound gorilla that has gridblocked the House since the Republicans can back to power following the 2010 elections. This made up rule (it not part of official procedural policy) hold that NO BILL may reach the floor of the House unless a majority of Republicans support it. This dastardly imposition, originally put in place by one man, Hastert, means that compromise in the House is not possible because 20 or 30 Republicans CAN'T join with the Democrats to approve a bill because it would not be allowed on the floor for a vote in the first place.
The Hastert Rule is now the Boehner Rule and the Speaker should answer for its consequences in destroying compromise in Washington, DC.
12
Sorry, your ad hominem makes no sense. FDR interned the Japanese, so the New Deal programs like Social Security should be eliminated?
And the Boehner House sent SCORES of passed bills to Harry Reid which he never allowed a vote on for years. Reid is the real obstructionist.
And the Boehner House sent SCORES of passed bills to Harry Reid which he never allowed a vote on for years. Reid is the real obstructionist.
No sympathy for Hastert here, he deserves his ignominy. But this is an example of how bad facts make bad law. The fate of Hastert suggests the law is fair--it is not.
This cash reporting law is an example of our abusive government.
The Foriegn Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the offshore voluntary disclosure program (OVDP) are two examples of how the Obama administration has increased this abusive overreach.
The $10,000 reporting rule for cash transactions was intended to make it easier to prosecute those conducting criminal activities by eliminating the need to prove hidden crimes, by criminalizing certain public transactions that are sometimes, but not always, associated with criminal acts.
Trouble is, there are many instances in which the US has prosecuted people perfectly innocent of any other crime other than not reporting their currency transactions properly. Congress assumed its cops would use good judgment in enforcing the law. They do not.
Obama has compounded the situation with FATCA -- which expends vast, even Brobdingnagian sums of money and resources on a worldwide dragnet, to catch or prevent a tiny number of people who evade taxes. The NSA's collection the numbers of who you have called on the telephone is an infintesimal pygmy in comparison to the financial data collected worldwide pursuant to FATCA and its foreign counterparts. Talk about the end of freedom.
OVDP. Another abomination enforced without discretion.
This cash reporting law is an example of our abusive government.
The Foriegn Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the offshore voluntary disclosure program (OVDP) are two examples of how the Obama administration has increased this abusive overreach.
The $10,000 reporting rule for cash transactions was intended to make it easier to prosecute those conducting criminal activities by eliminating the need to prove hidden crimes, by criminalizing certain public transactions that are sometimes, but not always, associated with criminal acts.
Trouble is, there are many instances in which the US has prosecuted people perfectly innocent of any other crime other than not reporting their currency transactions properly. Congress assumed its cops would use good judgment in enforcing the law. They do not.
Obama has compounded the situation with FATCA -- which expends vast, even Brobdingnagian sums of money and resources on a worldwide dragnet, to catch or prevent a tiny number of people who evade taxes. The NSA's collection the numbers of who you have called on the telephone is an infintesimal pygmy in comparison to the financial data collected worldwide pursuant to FATCA and its foreign counterparts. Talk about the end of freedom.
OVDP. Another abomination enforced without discretion.
6
Rand Paul is introducing a bill to repeal FATCA and Republicans Overseas is about to file a lawsuit against the Federal Government to repeal FATCA on several Constitutional grounds. More importantly, the Republican National Committee has endorsed Residency-Based Taxation (RBT) to replace Citizenship-based Taxation (CBT) in this modern, globalized world where only the US and Eritrea employ CBT. Eritrea's treatment of its expat citizens is much kinder than the punitive, discriminatory and potentially ruinous treatment of the US towards its expats.
Let's look at other forms of legitimate government oversight into our personal affairs. It is an offence (albeit a minor one) to drive on the public roads while concealing our license plate -- it does not matter if you are not committing any road violations. I don't see how this law is any different.
The public (as a whole) has an interest in monitoring financial transactions for a range of reasons. Similarly, the public has an interest in ensuring that all vehicles on the public roadway are identifiable and linked to on owner.
The public (as a whole) has an interest in monitoring financial transactions for a range of reasons. Similarly, the public has an interest in ensuring that all vehicles on the public roadway are identifiable and linked to on owner.
" It is an offence (albeit a minor one) to drive on the public roads while concealing our license plate ..."
The law that felled Hastert authorizes a 5 year prison term for concealing his bank transaction, and 5 years for lying about it. Punishing Hastert's attempt to make reparations to a victim in no way advances the public's interest in controlling racketeering, gambling, and drugs.
This law provides exactly the type of dictatorial power that J. Edgar Hoover begged a submissive Congress for during his waning years. Congress probably can't/won't fix it, but the FBI or our impressive new Attorney General should apply a degree of 21st century reasonableness to its enforcement.
The law that felled Hastert authorizes a 5 year prison term for concealing his bank transaction, and 5 years for lying about it. Punishing Hastert's attempt to make reparations to a victim in no way advances the public's interest in controlling racketeering, gambling, and drugs.
This law provides exactly the type of dictatorial power that J. Edgar Hoover begged a submissive Congress for during his waning years. Congress probably can't/won't fix it, but the FBI or our impressive new Attorney General should apply a degree of 21st century reasonableness to its enforcement.
I question whether it is wise to equate the public's interests with those of "professional" politicians such as Mister Hastert - or Harry Reid or president Obama for that matter. It seems to me as I grow older and somewhat wiser that the public's interest is largely to be left alone to make what they can of their lives it is in the interest of professional politicians to impose as many impediments as possible on that goal in order to feed the government that empowers them and to increase their own sense of self importance.
2
So lending your car to a friend is against the law?
On the other hand, I am sure they are watching me suspiciously. We are currently building a new home using the cash we saved to build it. The transactions and down payments are exceeding the 10k limit. Hope the feds read this so I don't have to explain it to them again.
2
For sure they are reading this, but one thing is reading and another is tying your comment with the "crime", for example, receiving tips from the Russian about the Tsarnaev brothers didn't stop the bombing, in fact, the FBI y didn't even ask the brothers about the trips.....
1
Are you paying in cash? If so, why?
There is no "10K limit". What brings potential federal attention is taking money out in cash just below that amount on a repeated basis.
If you pay by check, there is an obvious trail on payments. Billions of dollars per day changes hands in this manner.
There is no "10K limit". What brings potential federal attention is taking money out in cash just below that amount on a repeated basis.
If you pay by check, there is an obvious trail on payments. Billions of dollars per day changes hands in this manner.
And yet, regular periodic donations just under the 10,000 limit going to both liberal and conservative PACS and political group are rarely if ever investigated. Money and politics is not a problem. What does that tell you about the system?
15
It is important to remember that this law pertains literally to cash, i.e. paper money printed at the US Mint. Political contributions are virtually always made by check. In fact there are laws in various jurisdictions requiring donations in amounts a small fraction of $10,000 to be made by check or credit card.
2
Tom, Sorry you have to be nervous these days, when it is your hard earned money that is already being taxed to high heaven. So everyone suffers because of the few bad players. It's a totally fxked system but it's theirs. Too bad they don't have to live by the same rules. Even crooks like Al Sharpton, owes millions, won't pay it back, he black mails them ... no pun intended.
I think you might have misunderstood what "structuring" involves. You can look up more details, ask your banker or if you feel the need, have a five minute consultation with an attorney.
Here we go again our government making criminals out of perfectly law abiding citizens. Why is it the business of our government how much money somebody takes out from his local friendly bank. This law have numerous unintended consequences which the government obviously knew about but ignored. The former governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer was also caught up in this horrible law and had to resign from office. Why is it the government's business that he was paying money to a prostitute. This law is worse than the Patriot Act.
9
Government bears the cost of dealing with crime like drugs, illegal weapons, human trafficking etc.
Hold on, the government isn't making criminals of law abiding citizens. Taking cash isn't illegal. It's what you do with it. It is the government's business because in today's economy, there are untold ways to do legitimate business with large sums of money other than cash. And many nefarious activities require the use of cash only. This does exactly what you would want, highlight suspicious activity. Just doing something suspicious doesn't make you a criminal but it does raise flags. Then when your explanation raises more flags, any investigator is obliged to pursue. Just like buying large quantities of fertilizer isn't illegal, but if you don't own a farm, that would raise suspicions.
1
Spitzer was arranging for prostitution across state lines which is a felony. He was a consummate bully with few friends who caused his own demise and arrogantly tried again to run for public office unsuccessfully. RIP.
This is a good law, and in this case it served its purpose: transparency in financial transactions. The underlying criminal activity in this case - sexual abuse - may no longer be subject to prosecution, but I applaud the bank officials for reporting the activity and the federal investigators in their prosecution of the charges against Hastert. We learned today of an additional, now-deceased victim: Stephen Reinboldt, whose sister, Jolene Burdge said in an interview that he told her he had homosexual contact with Hastert and that the relationship lasted through all of his high school years. Hastert structured these payments because he thought disclosing the purpose would damage his reputation - upon which he made millions after leaving office. Now, at last, we know his true character, and his lobbying dollar gravy-train had been derailed.
12
I completely disagree, the ends do not justify the means. This is merely trolling and see what you turn up. In this case they found something. How many cases were there/are there where they find nothing.
We don't need devious minds projecting their motives onto innocent actions. Civil forfeiture laws are already written wrongly putting the onus of the accused to prove their innocence rather than the burden of proof laying with the prosecutor of the case. Law enforcement and criminal minds are hard wired to see only evil while being dismissive of those who simply would never consider engaging in anything unlawful.
We don't need devious minds projecting their motives onto innocent actions. Civil forfeiture laws are already written wrongly putting the onus of the accused to prove their innocence rather than the burden of proof laying with the prosecutor of the case. Law enforcement and criminal minds are hard wired to see only evil while being dismissive of those who simply would never consider engaging in anything unlawful.
8
I agree with you, this is Obama's justice department going after anybody in the opposition party. Yet, there will be no investigation at all concerning the millions of dollars that the Clinton's have taken from foreign governments in a quid pro quo for favorable government rulings, will there?
1
And how has this law stopped cash funds flowing from Islamists in this country to the terrorists in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.?
I am not a crook, a criminal or a terrorist.
I have withdrawn large amounts in the past for
various projects and to give to relatives.
This has all been lawful and with the best of intentions but
yet I now have been labeled a criminal.
This law is unjust.
This law needs to be revoked or greatly modified.
I have withdrawn large amounts in the past for
various projects and to give to relatives.
This has all been lawful and with the best of intentions but
yet I now have been labeled a criminal.
This law is unjust.
This law needs to be revoked or greatly modified.
13
Have you been indicted?? are jut self-labeling?
Were you actually labeled as a criminal? I work for a financial institution. No one gets labeled as a criminal because of occasional transactions. Only highly suspicious, ongoing activity gets reported.
I recently read about something called civil forfeiture. Apparently if you are driving with even a few thousand dollars police departments are confiscating it and you have a hard time getting it back. You need to hire an attorney and sue in court. The cost of the attorney can me much more than the money so people rarely get it back. Look it up. Government is out of control.
1
Seems to me that the Gov. should be more concerned with "structured" cash deposits way more than with cash withdrawals from accounts where the source of the funds on deposit are clearly and plainly legitimate. Let's say I win the state lottery and deposit a government check for a few million bucks in my checking account and I have paid all taxes required on those monies. Why should it be of any concern if I withdraw, say $ 20,000 per week from those funds? If I am suspected of making illegal purchases, then surveile(sp?) me and catch me in the act and prosecute me. Hastert's problem, other than his suspected pedophilia which he is NOT charged with in this case, is that he lied about what he was doing with the money. He should have just said he was paying the money to so-and-so pursuant to a private contractual agreement. The feds would then have a tax evasion case against that person, and possibly an extortion case if the recipient gave the details of the extortion agreement.
11
The verb is to "surveil," but your comment raises other far more important questions.
Why was Hastert indicted for lying to the FBI, while James Clapper, who obviously committed perjury in lying to a Senate Investigative Committee, as to whether the NSA was amassing data on millions of Americans, is immune from prosecution? Which of those respective lies is more insidious and more likely to convince Americans that the motives and actions of their government are not to be trusted?
Why was Hastert indicted for lying to the FBI, while James Clapper, who obviously committed perjury in lying to a Senate Investigative Committee, as to whether the NSA was amassing data on millions of Americans, is immune from prosecution? Which of those respective lies is more insidious and more likely to convince Americans that the motives and actions of their government are not to be trusted?
2
The lesson to be learned is don't lie. Just always claim your right against self incrimination. The government should not even be asking how a private citizen spends their money.
2
This is another good example of how American citizens have ceded their personal liberties to the Federal Government. The government should have no right to know how much money I have, how much money I earn, and what I do with that money. If there is probable cause that I am committing a crime then law enforcement should go to a judge and obtain a warrent, as per the 4th amendment, if they want to review my finances. This is also why the income tax should be replaced by a vat, national sales tax or some other revenue stream that does not invade our personal liberties.
41
We have lost our personal liberties over time. We have none left.
1
@ Larry Gr "...The government should have no right to know how much money I have, how much money I earn..."
But if the government doesn't know how much I earn, then I can cheat on my taxes with impunity and leave honest people, such as yourself, to pick up the slack paying for wars, security, etc.
But if the government doesn't know how much I earn, then I can cheat on my taxes with impunity and leave honest people, such as yourself, to pick up the slack paying for wars, security, etc.
2
The government has every right to know how much money you earn because you are obligated to pay taxes on it. Those taxes pay for your roads, bridges, airports etc. and of course in the event of a disaster you won't hesitate to ask for government assistance.
Regrettably if you're voting for Republicans your taxes will also go for corporate welfare.
It really is important to pay attention to how all this works.
Regrettably if you're voting for Republicans your taxes will also go for corporate welfare.
It really is important to pay attention to how all this works.
1
Great article. The structuring law and the reporting requirement are bad laws to begin with. If someone is suspected of money laundering, get a warrant to investigate. Otherwise the government has no business watching over our money or spending. Like the spying activities of the NSA, this is a broad over reach of government and should be stopped.
62
This law applies to anybody who withdraws a certain amount..
If I withdraw X amount of dollars to give to my son-in-law for
our family project I may be guilty of a crime.
This law is unjust.
I am innocent.
If I withdraw X amount of dollars to give to my son-in-law for
our family project I may be guilty of a crime.
This law is unjust.
I am innocent.
1
The structuring law is designed to catch real criminals - cartels, terrorists, etc., - who are laundering money for or from other illegal activity. The law has to be broad to be effective. But I expect prosecutors to exercise their discretion responsibly. And when it turns out that your suspect is using his own money for a legal purpose - to either pay a blackmailer (perfectly legal) or compensate a victim (also legal) - then you don't indict him.
Without the responsible exercise of discretion, laws of broad applicability will be in jeopardy, and rightly so.
Without the responsible exercise of discretion, laws of broad applicability will be in jeopardy, and rightly so.
14
I don't disagree at all with the spirit of your comments. But, as a technical matter of law, it's only "legal" to pay a blackmailer if you're reporting that payment as a gift on your annual income tax filings. This of course is presuming that the blackmailer isn't providing his victim with an invoice and a TIN.
I suspect that if these payments by Hastert happened in previous years, and those payments were either claimed as income by the recipient, or reported as a gift by Hastert, additional charges will be forthcoming. The naming of the IRS is as an investigating agency in the indictment (rather than just Treasury and FBI), further raises my suspicion that there's a tax element at play her, too.
I suspect that if these payments by Hastert happened in previous years, and those payments were either claimed as income by the recipient, or reported as a gift by Hastert, additional charges will be forthcoming. The naming of the IRS is as an investigating agency in the indictment (rather than just Treasury and FBI), further raises my suspicion that there's a tax element at play her, too.
2
Hastert would likely avoided this whole mess if he had not compounded his wrongdoing by lying to the FBI in addition to structuring his cash withdrawals.
I fail to see the abuse of discretion. Hastert knowingly broke the law and made false statements. If the authorities had let Hastert skate and it was revealed later we would all be here talking about the preferential treatment enjoyed by wealthy, connected people.
I fail to see the abuse of discretion. Hastert knowingly broke the law and made false statements. If the authorities had let Hastert skate and it was revealed later we would all be here talking about the preferential treatment enjoyed by wealthy, connected people.
Folks, this is why attorneys exist.
E.g.. Hastert meets with an attorney about the demand.
The attorney has the recipient sign a confidentiality agreement, has Hastert send payment to the lawyer, who then cuts a check for the funds from their trust account (Hastert is never identified).
Any questions from law enforcement (very unlikely) get referred back to the attorney, whose response is (paraphrased) "none of your beeswax."
E.g.. Hastert meets with an attorney about the demand.
The attorney has the recipient sign a confidentiality agreement, has Hastert send payment to the lawyer, who then cuts a check for the funds from their trust account (Hastert is never identified).
Any questions from law enforcement (very unlikely) get referred back to the attorney, whose response is (paraphrased) "none of your beeswax."
29
Being that the primary occupation amongst members of Congres is attorney, I can see why such a scheme of revenue-generating busywork for lawyers might be attractive.
For the 99%+ who aren't lawyers, however, the entire law and your proposed scheme represent unconstitutional overreach.
For the 99%+ who aren't lawyers, however, the entire law and your proposed scheme represent unconstitutional overreach.
1
Until it's reported to the State Bar and the attorney is investigated
This law doesn't trouble me. I don't have the reaction that many others seem to have, including Mr. Friedersdorf, that someone "could" be prosecuted just because they don't want the government to know that they have withdrawn over $10,000 (side question: has anybody actually been prosecuted for this who didn't use the money for a criminal act? There were no examples in this article or in the one by Mr. Friedersdorf).
We already have many laws regarding "my" money. I pay taxes on all of it, for example. I am required to account for every penny I earn, for example. There are many items I cannot purchase with "my" money (e.g., for medicines I need a prescription; if I am a minor I can't purchase alcohol). I can't gamble with my money in many places.
This law catches crooks. That is a real effect for me. It caught Mr. Hastert who was being blackmailed by someone and who had a real shot at being the President. This is like some bad spy movie, but it was a real possibility.
And from what I understand, the only "right" I give up is to have the government be aware when I make a large cash transaction. And so I obey the law to not try to be cute and avoid this reporting. Big deal.
Compared with "my" money being used to pay for things I am morally opposed to (like a huge military), losing this "right" regarding "my" money falls far below my radar. I lose nothing and gain a lot.
We already have many laws regarding "my" money. I pay taxes on all of it, for example. I am required to account for every penny I earn, for example. There are many items I cannot purchase with "my" money (e.g., for medicines I need a prescription; if I am a minor I can't purchase alcohol). I can't gamble with my money in many places.
This law catches crooks. That is a real effect for me. It caught Mr. Hastert who was being blackmailed by someone and who had a real shot at being the President. This is like some bad spy movie, but it was a real possibility.
And from what I understand, the only "right" I give up is to have the government be aware when I make a large cash transaction. And so I obey the law to not try to be cute and avoid this reporting. Big deal.
Compared with "my" money being used to pay for things I am morally opposed to (like a huge military), losing this "right" regarding "my" money falls far below my radar. I lose nothing and gain a lot.
19
Not only have people been prosecuted for it, but assets have been seized because of it. It happens far too frequently, actually. There was a very recent case about a grocer who the government alleged was engaged in "structuring." While the feds never filed charges against the grocer (as it was clear he wasn't engaged in any criminal activity), they still seized the assets using the much-abused asset forfeiture laws. The government has since been instructed to return the money, after costing the grocer hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
15
Do you realize how many thousands of people have had their bank accounts seized, or cars, or homes, when no crime was ever identified? Think about the reality that Hastert was arrested for withdrawing his own money from his own bank account and lying to the feds about what he did with the money> Do you seriously believe that's a criminal act??
1
You are incorrect. Lots of people have been prosecuted under this law, and lost all their money, even though they were not doing anything criminal. It especially hits small business that daily deposit what's in the register. Spend 15 minutes researching this and you will see.
2
Years ago Chase Bank advised me to close my savings account and open a second checking account to avoid bank reporting requirements. They told me I was subject to reporting for money laundering. This because I was putting part of my paycheck into savings but sometimes needed to transfer funds (a couple hundred dollars at a time) into my checking or one of my college kids' checking accounts later in the month. No cash involved--just transferring funds from one account to another in my name--but more often than the law allows. Big brother, anyone?
17
Two months ago, I took $30,000 from my savings account at one institution and placed it in my checking account at another institution to pay for some home remodeling I was having done. Sure enough, I was contacted by representatives of both institutions inquiring about the transfer of a "large amount of money" that the government required them to report. I wanted to tell them it was none of their business what I was doing with my own money, but figured that my next contact probably would have been from the FBI.
13
ST, so Chase Bank was advising you to commit a felony. This happens all the time:
Unknowing Felon: "I'd like to withdraw $11,000 to buy a gift for my grandson"
Teller: "I have to file paperwork for transactions over $10,000"
Unknowing Felon: "Oh, then make that two $5,500 withdrawals"
Not only is that a felony, but when grandma tells the FBI that she did two transactions because she didn't want the hassle of the paperwork, she's just CONFESSED to the crime.
People often assume that in totalitarian states, the police just ignore the law. More often, the laws are written so broadly that the police (or prosecutors) have complete discretion.
Mercy
Unknowing Felon: "I'd like to withdraw $11,000 to buy a gift for my grandson"
Teller: "I have to file paperwork for transactions over $10,000"
Unknowing Felon: "Oh, then make that two $5,500 withdrawals"
Not only is that a felony, but when grandma tells the FBI that she did two transactions because she didn't want the hassle of the paperwork, she's just CONFESSED to the crime.
People often assume that in totalitarian states, the police just ignore the law. More often, the laws are written so broadly that the police (or prosecutors) have complete discretion.
Mercy
This seems odd to me. I've spent most of my career in the financial industry and financial software industry and I've never heard of anything like this.
There are far too many laws that allow the government to cast incredibly broad nets. Most of these are unintended consequences of well intended legislation. The government is not our friend, and requires a leash that must always be held tight. It has been loose for far too long....
31
This law is only one of a myriad of effects from the futile effort to make the US drug-free.
1
Boy, you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately most U.S. citizens are naive, and/or ignorant as many who have written here in favor of the reporting law. To, maybe, catch the tiny percent of law breakers, 99.9% of us legally operating citizens must give up yet another liberty by reporting not just $10,000 or more but less than that because, as my banker told me, federal bank examiners were putting pressure on his bank for non-reported withdrawals of less than $10,000. So, I simply went to different branches every month or so and took in cash usually about $5,000 a pop. I accumulated between $30,000 and $50,000 per year in cash. Why? Because I wanted to, that's why! It used to be the U.S. was primarily a cash economy, but the government wants a non-cash economy because it can track, through our use of paper/plastic money, our whereabouts and many other aspects of daily life. This is a primary reason the government makes it easy to own homes, because through a home the government creates a static person that can be controlled and whose location is relatively fixed. Put another way, the government hates the fact that people still rent, use cash, etc. because these people are fluid and more difficult to keep a handle on and control through the court system. I was very successful in every way including monetarily. As a legally operating businessman for 48 years until I retired, I resent very much government intrusion such as this law ostensibly passed to catch drug dealers.
1
Elliot Spitzer was snagged by these reporting requirements because he would somewhat regularly withdraw $5,000.00 cash, which the bank deemed suspicious and reported it, supposedly thinking he was being blackmailed, or so the reported story goes. The resulting investigation revealed he was using the money for his high priced call girl.
I always felt that was political payback from the banks to the "sheriff of Wall St." Why would $5,000 cash withdrawals seem suspicious for a person of his wealth?
So between the IRS deeming repeated high four figure cash deposits from small businesses suspicious and similar cash withdrawals being deemed suspicious it's become obvious the intention is to create the ability to monitor each and every transaction, because the government taxes you money when you make it and when you spend it. And, of course, the banks don't get a transaction fee when you use cash, only their plastic, another sieve on the economy.
Soon enough currency will be embedded with a chip or some kind of encoding which will allow its trail to be traced far more easily than the serial numbers on bills today allow, which is far more elaborate than the average citizen is aware.
I always felt that was political payback from the banks to the "sheriff of Wall St." Why would $5,000 cash withdrawals seem suspicious for a person of his wealth?
So between the IRS deeming repeated high four figure cash deposits from small businesses suspicious and similar cash withdrawals being deemed suspicious it's become obvious the intention is to create the ability to monitor each and every transaction, because the government taxes you money when you make it and when you spend it. And, of course, the banks don't get a transaction fee when you use cash, only their plastic, another sieve on the economy.
Soon enough currency will be embedded with a chip or some kind of encoding which will allow its trail to be traced far more easily than the serial numbers on bills today allow, which is far more elaborate than the average citizen is aware.
24
Rich people hardly ever touch cash for legal business anymore.
yeah we are increasingly looking at real capital controls. I see gold making a comeback in all this.
Good point! Selective prosecution of one activity that should be legal that was done to pay for another activity that should be legal.
Remind me again why we just renewed P.A.T.R.I.O.T.?
Remind me again why we just renewed P.A.T.R.I.O.T.?
While the Justice department pursues political enemies, Bill and Hillary use tax deductible donations in the hundreds of millions to operate a political campaign run out of the Clinton Foundation. Our criminal justice system has become a partisan tool for destroying political enemies while providing cover to the political insiders. Unfortunately the media places high value on the news value and very little value on the underlying justice issues. Abuse of prosecutorial process is rampant and the victims have no effective defense against the suffocating power of government. Sooner or later every person will suffer their 15 minutes of government induced infamy. For as long as we elect our masters we will continue to be their helpless vassals.
21
There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton Foundation funds are being used in Hillary's campaign. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Don't believe everything you hear from hate radio. Heck, don't believe a single thing you hear from hate radio.
The United States has devolved into a nation where if something isn't specifically allowed it is forbidden.
76
Everything brand new starts out legal. The law doesn't intervene until problems develop from it.
Hoot,
Some other nations, such as the Democratic Peoples Republic of (North) Korea, the Peoples Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Cuba, share that characteristic with the United States!
Some other nations, such as the Democratic Peoples Republic of (North) Korea, the Peoples Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Cuba, share that characteristic with the United States!
2
Elites who run the world like Bill Gates and others have proposed and end to paper currency and going to an all electronic money system. To me this is an end time prophecy - the mark of the beast.
The old Title 18, section 1001 (18 U.S.C. 1001) Boys and girls, never, never talk to a government agent without an attorney present even if you want to help(no good deed goes unpunished). You may not realize that your statements may not be 100% correct. So many people make this mistake. People in general talk too much. Loose lips sink ships.
65
Posting here is probably a bad idea too, eh?
1
You have a constitutional right against self incrimination. I believe you should always take it. I go on the assumption that I am probably committing any number of crimes at any given moment because most of life is illegal under some federal law or regulation. Bureaucracies make more law than congress today. I'm no lawyer. I know I am not doing anything wrong, but I may be breaking the law without knowing it.
1
Say I take out $200 in cash from my bank's ATM machine every week for regular expenses. Over a one year period this totals $ 10,400 and is therefore over $10,00.
Is this considered structuring? It seems like it would be
Is this considered structuring? It seems like it would be
7
No, not even close. Banks don't track anything like that.
No, because your intent is not to evade reporting requirements. Also a year is a long enough period of time this would not be an issue.
yes , I have two hotels and I have my own ATM machines for hotel guests to use, because folks expect an ATM in a hotel. Getting money to put in them is very tricky , I have to do small amounts 3 times a week and in the begging the bank wrote me a letter saying I should stop or have my account closed . I had to have the branch mgr call some regional office to explain. I'm just "rotating" the money in and out ,it's the same money , I never withdraw more than $6,000 in 20's for the bank to fill the machine. I put money in the machine, folks take it out, it appears in my bank ,I take it out again to fill the machine etc. around we go ,same money ,in and out . I make a few bucks on the fees per month ,to cover, gas , receipt paper and the pay for the ATM machine it'self. At the end of the year I get a 1099 from the credit card processor and pay income taxes on any profit.
The problem with this "structuring" law is that it places the onus for reporting on private banks. Would you trust your banker with informing on you to the government?
The continuing "privatization" of criminal reporting is a real problem, as we become a nation of mandatory "whistle-blowers."
Before 9/11, stewardesses served tea and coffee, and now, without law enforcement training or specialized skills in mental health evaluation, they are empowered to ruin your day, and your life, by informing the pilot that "an unruly passenger" requires diversion of the plane, and by the way, have the FBI waiting.
Anyone ever have their family life intruded upon by officious DSS workers who received "anonymous" abuse tips which resulted from inter-family rivalry or poor neighbor relations? The impacted family never does quite get loose from that bureaucratic entanglement.
The governor's "new" SAFE anti-gun act requires mental health professionals to report licensed gun owners who, in their opinion, might constitute a risk. Good luck having gun owners show up for therapy after that helpful politically-inspired regulation.
Sometimes, the best prosecution is the one that is not brought. It only debases a law like this when there is no "underlying crime."
Hastert's accuser should have brought his allegations to authorities long ago. Now, his merely another extortionist, flipped by the Justice Dept. to get a big fish.
Wasn't Menendez enough for this Administration?.
The continuing "privatization" of criminal reporting is a real problem, as we become a nation of mandatory "whistle-blowers."
Before 9/11, stewardesses served tea and coffee, and now, without law enforcement training or specialized skills in mental health evaluation, they are empowered to ruin your day, and your life, by informing the pilot that "an unruly passenger" requires diversion of the plane, and by the way, have the FBI waiting.
Anyone ever have their family life intruded upon by officious DSS workers who received "anonymous" abuse tips which resulted from inter-family rivalry or poor neighbor relations? The impacted family never does quite get loose from that bureaucratic entanglement.
The governor's "new" SAFE anti-gun act requires mental health professionals to report licensed gun owners who, in their opinion, might constitute a risk. Good luck having gun owners show up for therapy after that helpful politically-inspired regulation.
Sometimes, the best prosecution is the one that is not brought. It only debases a law like this when there is no "underlying crime."
Hastert's accuser should have brought his allegations to authorities long ago. Now, his merely another extortionist, flipped by the Justice Dept. to get a big fish.
Wasn't Menendez enough for this Administration?.
22
Hard cases make bad law.
Oliver Wendell Homes.
Oliver Wendell Homes.
1
The tax man and federal law enforcement want to know why you are making multiple withdrawals just under the 10K limit. Clearly you are hiding your activity. Invasive, somewhat, but a lot of the things that prompt people to do this are illegal. Big civil liberties issue? Not really, though I suppose there are situations where one would like to have privacy. I'm sure smart people with money have ways of dealing with this. When triaging important civil liberty and privacy issues this ranks close to the bottom. On the other hand how many hienious crimes have been uncovered by this law? I bet a very small number.
As far as Hastert goes he was no prince. Once calling a woman testifying at a congressional hearing a terminator for aborting a fetus that had developed with its brain outside of its skull. I found him to be a particularly disgusting hypocrite when he led the House.
And how did Hastert become a multi millionaire?
As far as Hastert goes he was no prince. Once calling a woman testifying at a congressional hearing a terminator for aborting a fetus that had developed with its brain outside of its skull. I found him to be a particularly disgusting hypocrite when he led the House.
And how did Hastert become a multi millionaire?
11
wasn't this law the way Elliot Spitzer was found out?
1
I find your certainty that the withdrawals are a sign of illegality extremely disturbing. You're a clear example of why I would never trust my fate to a "jury of my peers." What happened to the Constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence? It scares me to know there are people out there who are so cavalier with my Civil Liberties, and so willing to assume they can waive my Rights.
13
Hastert became a millionaire as a lobbyist. I think he made some money from a real-estate deal while he was still a Congressman, but the bulk of his wealth was from lobbying.
1
"Still, privacy concerns need to be balanced with the entirely valid purpose of anti-money-laundering laws, that is, disrupting the activities of illegal businesses and tax evaders."
This is absurd. Hastert's payments had nothing to do with either of those on his part, at least.
This is absurd. Hastert's payments had nothing to do with either of those on his part, at least.
9
One wonders how Hastert may have been manipulated by others in on his vulnerability when he was two heartbeats away from the presidency.
6
It's.
My.
Money.
LEAVE.
ME.
ALONE.
My.
Money.
LEAVE.
ME.
ALONE.
69
I assume you don't have a problem with "your" money being insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation?
18
People who traffic in drugs feel the same way.
Then put it under a mattress and not in a federally regulated bank.
1
Probably a diversion, you really cannot trust anyone in government or media. There is always a plot to deflect attention, divert the publics eyes from the current political shenanigans being deployed by the DNC and GOP.
4
And here I thought blackmail and extortion were illegal. Silly me.
9
That is why extortionists look for victims whose crimes preclude resorting to the police.
Hastert was the victim of the crimes you mention, not the perpetrator.
So now we prosecute the victims of crime?
It's a matter of time before cash is made illegal because the government can't stand the idea of you doing anything they can't monitor. That's basically the spirit of this law.
72
Now virtually all legal transactions can be performed without cash by someone with good credit, as Hastert surely had.
You hit the nail on the head. Glad to know there are a few sophisticated people still left. Most of the U.S.populace is very naive, unsophisticated and are lambs slowly going to the slaughter.
1
Sooner than you think. Coming soon to Denmark, then a country near you.
Sounds to me like political payback.
9
Money laundering is a serious problem and the law intends to address it. Banks and brokerage firms must diligently report suspected illegal or extraordinary deposits and withdrawals. Realtors do not. Folks can buy real estate for cash and there is no requirement to report. Foreigners, drug dealers and others intent on skirting the law do so freely. It is time for the policy to be improved increasing minimums and adding real estate and other non bank entities to the disclosure process. There are bigger problems than Rep. Hastert withdrawing his money that the government and A.G. should be addressing.
18
When I hear about "addressing" a problem,I can smell a fascist/totalitarian solution coming from a mile away.
Criminal activity is a serious problem. Money laundering is essentially a law that skirts around the Constitutional protection of double jeopardy and even self-incrimination: Criminals are ordered to report their illegal activity to the state. If the state can't prove the criminals have committed a crime, the state then find a loophole to charge them with failing to confess via declaring their ill gotten wages in their tax return.
Many criminals simply pay their income tax without bothering to launder it (from what I've read, it's fully legal.)
Criminal activity is a serious problem. Money laundering is essentially a law that skirts around the Constitutional protection of double jeopardy and even self-incrimination: Criminals are ordered to report their illegal activity to the state. If the state can't prove the criminals have committed a crime, the state then find a loophole to charge them with failing to confess via declaring their ill gotten wages in their tax return.
Many criminals simply pay their income tax without bothering to launder it (from what I've read, it's fully legal.)
5
It is wise to appear to have visible means of support and pay taxes consistent with rates of expenditure to avoid suspicion.
Stupid politicians passing millions of laws and finding that they built their own prisons.
1
One issue that might be pertinent is the taxability of the payments to the victim/payee. If there was no physical injury ("touching" wouldn't amount to that) the damages would clearly be taxable income to the payee. It is quite possible that cash payments were demanded or offered to allow the payee to hide the income. Such facts, if present, would be a further reason for the prosecution.
5
This law is also used to seize legitimately deposited funds because the reporting limit is so low. Small business owners who make regular cash deposits of less than $10,000 can have their funds taken. Between this and "civil forfeiture," in which no crime needs to be charged to have one's property and money taken by the government, we're edging very close to a confiscatory system that allows the wealthy to skate for financial crimes while wiping out the regular people who get caught up in the net.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/01/irs-steals-107000-from-convenience-store
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-whe...
http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/01/irs-steals-107000-from-convenience-store
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-whe...
97
Mr. Hastert had the opportunity to change the law when he was a U.S. Representative. Now he is possibly being punished for taking his own money out of the bank. For some reason I thought he must have committed a crime to get the money instead of just being unethical. We still do not know what the man did if anything in his past he might want to keep secret. Who was harmed here? Is it legal to keep money in a tin can buried in the back yard? Did he have to tell the F.B.I. what he did with it? Wouldn't it just be enough to show it was his and now he doesn't have it? Are the rules the same for investment banks? I knew there was a limit and if I went over the limit it would mean I won a lottery. Still, I guess he made it our business by having a friend who would roll over so easily on income tax evasion.
6
These laws are to ferret out money laundering and tax evasion, and they require reports of all--it's not some plot to bother Mr. Hastert, or to entrap you when you make a withdrawal. He report as required by law, he attempted evasion on a large scale, and he lied to the FBI. If those laws are onerous or mistaken in their intent, they are amenable to change. But neither Mr. Hastert nor any other person has carte blanche to break them until that time.
8
What tax did he evade? Gift tax? Not clear from the scenarios presented....
There is nothing wrong with people who are alive determining the social contract, I really don't want to ask dead people. I'm ok with us as a group (i.e. Government) sweeping up this information. As a aside, do corporations have to meet this requirement. Specifically, does Citigroup have to report transfers to their SIV's? I'm sure there is all sorts of legal & accounting mumbo jumbo that says..... ah no. Super Pac's?
2
Alas, religion teaches us that dead people were wiser than we could possibly be.
1
Yes, they absolutely do. Corporations rarely, however, deal in cash.
Now while I agree completely with you about the current state of campaign financing and how it is destroying this country, its not relevant here. In this case, everyone plays by the same rules.
Now while I agree completely with you about the current state of campaign financing and how it is destroying this country, its not relevant here. In this case, everyone plays by the same rules.
1
If my grandmother decides to gift her children and grandchildren the maxium $12000 a year and she does this all at once then she could be investigated? Lets say there are 10 relatives or maybe a friend or two so she writes 15 cheaks for a total of $150,000 . Are you saying she is breaking the law? These are tax free gifts but the bank has to report them and then thats a red flag on her account?
we do not live in a democracy, the dream is dead.
we do not live in a democracy, the dream is dead.
25
the reporting requirements are for cash transactions. You can write as many checks as you want for any amount.
6
First, she wrote checks so there is no illegal activity. Second, if asked about it she can just say what she did and why. Mr. Hastert denied the activity. As usual, it's not the activity that is illegal, it's the subsequent cover-up.
11
No, that's not what the article says, is it.
4
It's hard to criticize this law next to a story where it was used to uncover a crime. Monitoring cash payments is a primary way that the government not only catches tax evaders but also catches criminals. Often, as in the famous case of Al Capone, you cannot catch the criminal committing the crime, but you can catch the criminal with the cash. Smart criminals cover up their crimes and evil criminals threaten or harm witnesses. If this law is being abused let's fix that aspect of it. But we absolutely need to be able to use it to catch criminals.
1
The primary reason for this law is to complicate the finances of drug dealing.
7
Show us the law that states that individuals must report income and pay income taxes. The government does this as a means of control over the citizens and nothing more. Our taxes don't matter. They spend hundreds of billions more than they collect in taxes, hence the national debt continues to grow.
Time to start thinking people. Things do not add up as "they" present them to you.
Time to start thinking people. Things do not add up as "they" present them to you.
1
Intention of the law aside, the primary result of this law is to potentially turn everyone into a criminal. If you do cash transactions repeatedly just under $1000, that will get caught up in this kind of structuring law. Just ask the convenience store owner who had $100K of his legitimate money impounded, just for being honest and depositing the cash from his store in the bank.
2
The catch-all laws about lying to law enforcement are profoundly disturbing.
What a catch-22 it is, that we have a 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination, but lying to the FBI in pursuit of that self-interest is somehow illegal.
Laws about lying to law enforcement, along with other nebulous laws like failure to obey, really have no place in our society.
What a catch-22 it is, that we have a 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination, but lying to the FBI in pursuit of that self-interest is somehow illegal.
Laws about lying to law enforcement, along with other nebulous laws like failure to obey, really have no place in our society.
16
You have to cite the fifth amendment as your excuse to say nothing when you don't want to self-incriminate.
5
The ironic part is that law enforcement is allowed to lie. But you're not.
21
The judicial branch has found that in some instances the 5th doesn't apply. Basically, you have no rights. Get used to it. You voted for it.
4
Doesn't Hastert owe gift taxes on payments in excess of $14,000 per year to one person?
2
Mr. Hasert's transfer of funds was a business transaction, not a gift. In this case, the recipient pays the taxes.
6
Only if it is a gift, in which case the recipient owes no income taxes.
But the stories indicate a quid pro quo for which no gift tax would be due but the recipient would owe income taxes to the extent the payment exceeds damages.
But the stories indicate a quid pro quo for which no gift tax would be due but the recipient would owe income taxes to the extent the payment exceeds damages.
5
Of course, if the payment(s) Hastert made were a business transaction, he is required to file a 1099 with the IRS. I strongly doubt he did that.
This whole affair seems like convicting Al Capone on income tax evasion charges because they couldn't get him on the "real" crime.
3
I thought money was speech, and that speech was free...
Oh wait, that was the way things were in America, we are in Homelandistan now.
Oh wait, that was the way things were in America, we are in Homelandistan now.
58
Could Hastert have avoided all this trouble by just setting up a trust fund for his extortionist?
6
Unless he funded it with large cash withdrawals from his bank...
The further Bureaucratization of America.The govt. has used this law to sieze the funds of citizens without a shred of evidence of a crime being commited.Federal officials who lie get bonuses and promotions.Citizens get prosecuted.How did we get here and god knows where we're going.
26
We're going back to Tudor England.
Dennis Hastert is being persecuted. Those laws he's accused of violating should be repealed.
3
He had a chance to do that when he was speaker of the house. But the republicans don't really like to govern, so it's poetic justice that he got caught in that trap.
9
That the laws should be repealed or changed is a separate issue. The laws currently exists and Mr. Hasert broke them.
2
The much bigger issue for me is how a small town high school teacher gets into politics and in a few short years becomes a multi-millionaire.
180
Hastert must have had a sugar-daddy like Marco Rubio's.
1
he was a lobbyist.
When your campaign raises money for an election bid, you get to keep what remains. Simply running for office is like winning the lottery for the smart ones.
Individuals who travel to and from the US carrying financial instruments exceeding $10,000 are also required to disclose that when they go through customs. This past year, I have also been asked to show my picture ID when depositing comparatively small amount of cash into my own accounts (less than $1,000) when the cashier does not recognize me.
17
I was asked to show ID when trying to deposits $100 in rolled coins. The teller looked terrified. She called over the manager to take me to a desk to further investigate. It was ridiculous.
13
Hmmm, I have never had that happen, even when there was no way for the out of town bank tellers at a bank with a wide network of branches to know who I was. Perhaps there was some other reason.
3
I would not for a second defend Hastert's actions but this worst case example should not obscure the abuse of over-zealous criminal laws and their use. Our punishments are far heavier than comparable nations; we imprison more than any other country; we ignore rehabilitation; our law "enforcement" is more heavy handed; and laws such as the bank reporting criminalizes activity not historically, or inherently, illegal. The bank reporting statute and law enforcement questioning are a form of self-incrimination completely contrary to the spirit of our Bill of Rights. Here, as is so often the case, investigators and prosecutors who are unable to do their jobs properly are given excessive powers. We may detest Hastert but what has been done to him is really a threat to even the most innocent person who simply wants to withdraw large sums of money for a secret purpose. And not every secret is either criminal or something the police or anyone else needs to know.
52
Agreed. There is something seriously wrong with this country and government that allows this kind of nonsense. I am ashamed that I voted for Obama and by reference, his AG, Eric Holder--what a joke!
1
What I find disturbing about the law is that it can be used against those who aren't attempting to evade taxes or hiding criminal activity. Mr. Hastert apparently was -- the extortion payments may not have been illegal, but abusing his authority to have sex with a student may have been (depending on the age of the student, time, and jurisdiction). But putting people at risk for maintaining privacy seems like overreach.
Extortion victims, for example, aren't always guilty of a crime -- they could be hiding a legal act that could damage their marriage or career.
It seems to me that the law should be rewritten to apply only to those who are attempting to hide proceeds from an illegal act.
Extortion victims, for example, aren't always guilty of a crime -- they could be hiding a legal act that could damage their marriage or career.
It seems to me that the law should be rewritten to apply only to those who are attempting to hide proceeds from an illegal act.
28
If you require the government to prove the purpose of the structuring was to hide or further a crime, you require them to prove that underlying crime which defeats the whole purpose of the law, which is impede the ability of people launder money, deal drugs and cheat on their taxes in the first place.
It's a crime whose purpose is to impede or prevent other crimes. If you have to wait until you can prove the underlying crime happened, or was planned, to indict for structuring, there's no point in having a law against structuring.
And, for that matter, if your choice is to pay off an extortionist or man up and report him, the fact that paying him off puts you in criminal jeopardy may make it more likely extortionists get reported and convicted rather than paid.
It's a crime whose purpose is to impede or prevent other crimes. If you have to wait until you can prove the underlying crime happened, or was planned, to indict for structuring, there's no point in having a law against structuring.
And, for that matter, if your choice is to pay off an extortionist or man up and report him, the fact that paying him off puts you in criminal jeopardy may make it more likely extortionists get reported and convicted rather than paid.
There is something very disturbing about a law that makes it illegal to conceal legal activity from government. It is a form of surveillance that should only be directed at lawbreaking.
There is also something disturbing about designating that legal activity as probable cause that compels one to submit to a government interrogation in which one self-incriminates via any statement that can be construed as a lie. It is a form of illegal search and seizure.
If government has no probable cause to suspect an actual underlying illegal activity, it should not have the power to manufacture an illegal activity by a simple accusation of lying.
There is also something disturbing about designating that legal activity as probable cause that compels one to submit to a government interrogation in which one self-incriminates via any statement that can be construed as a lie. It is a form of illegal search and seizure.
If government has no probable cause to suspect an actual underlying illegal activity, it should not have the power to manufacture an illegal activity by a simple accusation of lying.
134
The apparent underlying activity here was not legal. Sexual contact with an underage minor by an adult with some authority over him was in fact illegal, hardly "manufactured."
The statute of limitations had expired, apparently because of Hastert's successful efforts to conceal it, but that doesn't make the underlying activity "legal".
The statute of limitations had expired, apparently because of Hastert's successful efforts to conceal it, but that doesn't make the underlying activity "legal".
43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
"... As the federal government of the United States does not have a generalized police power like that of the states, the scope of its criminal statutes is necessarily circumscribed; ordinary prosecutions are the province of the states, and only crimes of special federal import are pursued by the federal government. Consequently, Title 18 of the United States Code does not have a culpability scheme but relies on more traditional definitions of crimes taken from common law. For example, malice aforethought [mens rea] is used as a requirement for committing capital murder...."
"... As the federal government of the United States does not have a generalized police power like that of the states, the scope of its criminal statutes is necessarily circumscribed; ordinary prosecutions are the province of the states, and only crimes of special federal import are pursued by the federal government. Consequently, Title 18 of the United States Code does not have a culpability scheme but relies on more traditional definitions of crimes taken from common law. For example, malice aforethought [mens rea] is used as a requirement for committing capital murder...."
2
It is not illegal to make or conceal a mutual agreement between two parties for the purpose of reparations. It is a commonplace activity and a longstanding tradition, in fact.
This is about banking transactions, not sexual ones.
This is about banking transactions, not sexual ones.
32