Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#752 Jun 19 2012 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
No, the biggest mistake he made was transferring all the cash around to different accounts, in amounts less than $10,000. He was obviously trying to hide something.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#753 Jun 19 2012 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Their biggest mistake here appears to have been not hiring an accountant to manage the money for them.


No, dumb @#%^, their biggest mistake was lying about the money to receive a lesser bail and then illegally shifting the money (repeatedly) to shadow accounts in amounts just below the investigative threshold to avoid scrutiny. I wish I could say I'm shocked that you'd presume otherwise, but I'm not.

Edit: totally didn't see the next page and Pigtails's post.

Edited, Jun 19th 2012 7:15pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#754 Jun 19 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
No, the biggest mistake he made was transferring all the cash around to different accounts, in amounts less than $10,000. He was obviously trying to hide something.


BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Their biggest mistake here appears to have been not hiring an accountant to manage the money for them.


No, dumb @#%^, their biggest mistake was lying about the money to receive a lesser bail and then illegally shifting the money (repeatedly) to shadow accounts in amounts just below the investigative threshold to avoid scrutiny. I wish I could say I'm shocked that you'd presume otherwise, but I'm not.


Dramatic language aside (shadow accounts? Really?), this is all stuff an accountant/attorney would have warned them against doing and told them how to do what they were doing legally. Said person would have advised them on how to set up a defense fund such that it was legally separate from their "personal assets". He certainly would have told them *not* to just set up an account to put the money in, and then transfer that money from that account into a second account they own, and then into a relatives account to hold for them. He'd have told them to have the relative create the account in the first place, or have him do it and put it in some sort of trust.

That's why I say that was their biggest mistake. Everything I've heard about this (wild speculations aside) looks like two people who didn't understand that just because they say a given set of money is for a defense fund doesn't legally make it separate from their personal finances. And then shoveling the cash to a third party after the fact is the wrong way to make that money not be personal assets anymore. The issue is the money held in a defense fund. No one has suggested that their own normal private assets were hidden. Had they set up the account properly in the first place, they wouldn't be in any trouble over it.

Which is why I asked about how people normally manage such funds. It's not the existence of money donated by third parties to be used on Zimmerman's behalf, but the way in which said money was handled that is a problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#755 Jun 19 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm going to guess they were fully aware that they were circumventing the law with bunches of sub-$10k transfers. They didn't need to pay someone to inform them of this fact, they just didn't care to follow the law.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#756 Jun 19 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm going to guess they were fully aware that they were circumventing the law with bunches of sub-$10k transfers. They didn't need to pay someone to inform them of this fact, they just didn't care to follow the law.


Really? What law were they circumventing Joph? I'm honestly curious. The only thing that makes this even remotely legally problematic is that one of them told the judge under oath that they didn't have much personal money. Having the money isn't illegal. Transferring it in smallish amounts isn't illegal. It's not like the money was hidden. The web site and fund was publicly known. People donated money to it. Even the amount collected was known and (I assume) readily available to anyone with a web browser. If their intention was to hide money, they did a pretty crappy job of it.

Lots of people who know nothing about the banking system or finance laws know to transfer funds in amounts less than $10k. Most of them don't know *why* to do that, but pretty much everyone has heard of it. And while it's a method used for transferring money without raising flags, that's not automatically illegal. People do this because it's less hassle to do so that way. Talk to anyone who's worked in a bank. They advise their customers to split up transfers into such amounts as well. It's less hassle for the bank to handle the transactions. You cannot assume any illegality or intent to hide illegality just because someone does that.


As to the statement the wife made? She probably didn't think of the defense fund as their "personal finances" when asked that question. Should she have? Yes. Does it raise questions? Absolutely. But again, it's not like this was money that was hidden in any real way. It's not like she had some expectation that the court would have no way to know that a fund publicly known as their defense fund, that had been talked about on the news prior to that hearing, and for which the amount within was also known to anyone who looked was somehow magically hidden from the court when assessing the amount they had available for them to post bond. Hell. It was a defense fund. She probably assumed they knew about it.

Was it a mistake to not mention it or to verify that the court knew about said fund at the time? Absolutely. Was the intent from the beginning to conceal money? I don't see how. If anything, their lack of proper accounting for that fund is costing them, not helping them in any way. They could have set up that account so that it *didn't* count as personal finances legally. They failed to do so. That's why I say that their biggest mistake was not hiring an accountant to manage it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#757 Jun 19 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm going to guess they were fully aware that they were circumventing the law with bunches of sub-$10k transfers. They didn't need to pay someone to inform them of this fact, they just didn't care to follow the law.
Really? What law were they circumventing Joph? I'm honestly curious.

This one. You claiming it doesn't count because "everyone does it" [citation needed] isn't a defense.

Edited, Jun 19th 2012 8:35pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#758 Jun 19 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
What law were they circumventing Joph? I'm honestly curious.
Seeing as how they were concealing the source of legally, illegally, and grey area obtained monies, I'm going to go with money laundering. I guess you could say they did it accidentally sixteen times.
Jophiel wrote:
You claiming it doesn't count because "everyone does it" [citation needed] isn't a defense.
No, it is a defense. Just not one anyone seriously makes after the sixth grade.

Edited, Jun 19th 2012 9:38pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#759 Jun 19 2012 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm going to guess they were fully aware that they were circumventing the law with bunches of sub-$10k transfers. They didn't need to pay someone to inform them of this fact, they just didn't care to follow the law.
Really? What law were they circumventing Joph? I'm honestly curious.

This one. You claiming it doesn't count because "everyone does it" [citation needed] isn't a defense.


No. I'm claiming it doesn't count because there's no evidence that they actually attempted to hide the fact that the money existed or where it went. They received money from people into a paypal account attached to a well known web site. That money was transferred into one of their bank accounts (probably the one attached to the paypal account), and then into another, and then to a relatives account. None of these transfers were done secretly. They did not pay someone off to keep the transfers off the books. They left an electronic trail a mile wide.

If they'd set up an account with a bogus ID, transferred the funds to yet another bogus account, then withdrawn it in the form of cash (less than $10k at a time), then paid that money to themselves from a false business they set up for this purpose you'd have a point. But simply transferring money from an account you own to another account you own, in any amount, is not by itself illegal. And I'm sorry, but there is no evidence that this was any attempt to conceal the money or to launder it, but merely some people who didn't understand accounting rules transferring it in the best/easiest way they knew how from an account attached to a web site to a relative who would hold the money for them.


Obviously (because we're even talking about this) banks still keep records of all transactions, even those below $10k. The $10k figure just triggers a whole additional set of audits and checks on the transfer itself. Lots of people (and businesses) structure their transactions to stay below that $10k figure, not because they're doing anything illegal, or are attempting to conceal the transfer, but because they don't want to deal with the extra hassle (and often delays) that accompany such things. It's only illegal to do so if you are attempting to conceal the money for illegal purposes. This was not money laundering. This was a group of amateurs not knowing the correct way to set up a fund of money for a legal defense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#760 Jun 19 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. I'm claiming it doesn't count because there's no evidence that they actually attempted to hide the fact that the money existed or where it went

Well, that would be why we have law enforcement and a judicial system.
Quote:
None of these transfers were done secretly. They did not pay someone off to keep the transfers off the books. They left an electronic trail a mile wide.

This would certainly mark them as the first incompetent law breakers in history so I can see how this closes the case.

Edited, Jun 19th 2012 8:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#761 Jun 19 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. I'm claiming it doesn't count because there's no evidence that they actually attempted to hide the fact that the money existed or where it went

Well, that would be why we have law enforcement and a judicial system.
Quote:
None of these transfers were done secretly. They did not pay someone off to keep the transfers off the books. They left an electronic trail a mile wide.

This would certainly mark them as the first incompetent law breakers in history so I can see how this closes the case.


Um... When the law in question involves secretly moving money, it kinda does. The money wasn't secret. The collection of the money wasn't secret. The source of the money wasn't secret. The amount of the money wasn't secret. The purpose of the money wasn't secret. The transfers of the money wasn't secret. So where the **** is the crime?


The only potential illegality I see here is the possibility that the wife may be charged with perjury because when asked about their personal finances she did not disclose the money in the defense fund. And there's at least a somewhat reasonable argument that she didn't think of that money as "personal" at the time she was asked the question *and* that she assumed the court knew about the defense fund. Again, we're not talking about secret transfers of money from the Cayman Islands or something. They received donations to a paypal account via a well publicized web site. That's about as non-hidden a source of money as one can have.

Edited, Jun 19th 2012 7:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#762 Jun 19 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
gbaji wrote:
Their biggest mistake here appears to have been not hiring an accountant to manage the money for them.


Well, probably not the biggest. I'd say the biggest is an apparent attempt to purposefully split up a large transaction of money into many less than 10,000 dollar transactions to avoid automated detection by the federal government.


Since when was there another page on this thread? NVM then...

Edited, Jun 19th 2012 11:12pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#763 Jun 19 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When the law in question involves secretly moving money, it kinda does

Fortunately, the law doesn't say "secretly". Just that you have to be intentionally making the transfers in a way to avoid reporting requirements.
Quote:
The only potential illegality I see here...

Given that you already flubbed the law, it's a good thing you're not anyone's lawyer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#764 Jun 19 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Well that's how they got Capone...
The shooting at 2122 North Clark Street was clearly self defense.

Of course. They were clearly outnumbered.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#765 Jun 20 2012 at 1:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
No, the biggest mistake he made was transferring all the cash around to different accounts, in amounts less than $10,000. He was obviously trying to hide something.


BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Their biggest mistake here appears to have been not hiring an accountant to manage the money for them.


No, dumb @#%^, their biggest mistake was lying about the money to receive a lesser bail and then illegally shifting the money (repeatedly) to shadow accounts in amounts just below the investigative threshold to avoid scrutiny. I wish I could say I'm shocked that you'd presume otherwise, but I'm not.


Dramatic language aside (shadow accounts? Really?), this is all stuff an accountant/attorney would have warned them against doing and told them how to do what they were doing legally.


The fact that they KNEW to transfer in amounts just under $10,000 to avoid federal scrutiny is all that needs to be known. This is not a case of ignorance. It's a case of deliberate deception. That you would suggest otherwise taints your credibility as much as it does theirs. That's no shock to any asylum poster though. You're a complete **** idiot and you're full of **** I honestly don't know which is worse.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#766 Jun 20 2012 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
At some point anyone rational would at least consider the possibility that doing something specific sixteen times may be intentional.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#767 Jun 20 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
At some point anyone rational would at least consider the possibility that doing something specific sixteen times may be intentional.


That's what does it for me. It's not the type of transaction that was made, but the number of times it was made. I know about the $10,000 reporting limit from my time as a car salesman. Actually, I once was instructed by my manager to tell a customer not to put $10,000 down on a car because we would have to report it. I'm not sure if we were doing that for his sake, or to save our office staff a bunch of extra paperwork.

Now, that notwithstanding, I have no clue what the specifics of the law are. I only know that any cash/check transaction over $10,000 has to be reported to whoever the correct authorities are. Knowing that, I realize that intentionally making multiple such transactions just under the $10,000 would appear suspicious.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#768 Jun 20 2012 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
I wasn't aware of it, but it's pretty **** obvious they were considering the vast amount of money they received, and that every single transaction was between $9k and just under $10k. If they had had even ONE transaction that was $10K or higher, they might have a leg to stand on. And yeah, it says right there in the **** article that intentionally moving money around in amounts under $10K is illegal. It's considered money laundering.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#769 Jun 20 2012 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's considered "Structuring" which is a method that facilitates money laundering. But the structuring itself is illegal if they can convince a judge/jury that you were intentionally trying to avoid the reporting limit even if your reasons for it weren't themselves illegal.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#770 Jun 20 2012 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When the law in question involves secretly moving money, it kinda does

Fortunately, the law doesn't say "secretly". Just that you have to be intentionally making the transfers in a way to avoid reporting requirements.


You might want to re-read that law you linked to.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#771 Jun 20 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's considered "Structuring" which is a method that facilitates money laundering. But the structuring itself is illegal if they can convince a judge/jury that you were intentionally trying to avoid the reporting limit even if your reasons for it weren't themselves illegal.


God. No. It's not. It's only illegal if you're using it to conceal some other illegality. If you're doing it, as a whole **** of a lot of people do, just to avoid the hassle of additional paperwork involved in a larger sum transaction, then it's not by itself illegal. Did you not just read other people's posts?:

Quote:
Actually, I once was instructed by my manager to tell a customer not to put $10,000 down on a car because we would have to report it. I'm not sure if we were doing that for his sake, or to save our office staff a bunch of extra paperwork.


I also said earlier that banks tellers will often instruct customers to avoid transfers that are $10k or greater. They tell them that unless there is some need to move the money in one lump sum right now, to break it up into smaller parts. They do this to avoid the extra paperwork they have to do on the transfer. Should they? Maybe not. But the fact is that this is a common practice that lots of people know to do, but that most of them don't actually know why or what real effect it has, much less that there might be a perception of impropriety with regard to the transfer itself if they do it.

And it's certainly not by itself illegal. To suggest it is flies in the face of the real facts of the real world all around you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#772 Jun 20 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When the law in question involves secretly moving money, it kinda does

Fortunately, the law doesn't say "secretly". Just that you have to be intentionally making the transfers in a way to avoid reporting requirements.


You might want to re-read that law you linked to.


I'm not sure what law you think Jophiel linked to, but here's the federal law on the subject:

(a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Financial Institutions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508—
(1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by an order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508;
(2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by any order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508, that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.


Nothing in there about secrecy. Attempting to avoid triggering an automatic report by financial institutions based on a transaction amount set by the Sec. of Treasury is illegal, whether you openly declare such attempt or not, and regardless of why such attempt took place.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 4:20pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#773 Jun 20 2012 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It's considered "Structuring" which is a method that facilitates money laundering. But the structuring itself is illegal if they can convince a judge/jury that you were intentionally trying to avoid the reporting limit even if your reasons for it weren't themselves illegal.


God. No. It's not. It's only illegal if you're using it to conceal some other illegality. If you're doing it, as a whole **** of a lot of people do, just to avoid the hassle of additional paperwork involved in a larger sum transaction, then it's not by itself illegal.


You couldn't possibly be more wrong. See USC reference in previous post for the why.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#774 Jun 20 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
I want to know what episode of Law & Order he was watching when he came up with the "It's only illegal if you're doing something else that's illegal as well" defense.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#775 Jun 20 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When the law in question involves secretly moving money, it kinda does

Fortunately, the law doesn't say "secretly". Just that you have to be intentionally making the transfers in a way to avoid reporting requirements.


You might want to re-read that law you linked to.


I'm not sure what law you think Jophiel linked to, but here's the federal law on the subject:

(a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Financial Institutions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508—
(1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by an order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508;
(2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by any order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508, that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.


Nothing in there about secrecy. Attempting to avoid triggering an automatic report by financial institutions based on a transaction amount set by the Sec. of Treasury is illegal, whether you openly declare such attempt or not.


Read the whole law. What do sections 5313 and 5325 say? Did you read them? How about 5326?


The point of this portion of the law is to make it illegal to intentionally structure money transactions so as to evade existing systems designed to detect money laundering (and the related illegalities associated with that), and to effectively overload the charges you can bring in such cases. But it's only illegal *if* you are attempting to prevent detection of some form of money laundering. Or to prevent the government from knowing where your money is coming from or going. That was not the case here. If they were receiving money in the form of bags of cash, and then carefully structuring deposits and withdrawals in order to prevent any government agencies from realizing that they are handling more money than they can legitimately account for *then* what they were doing is illegal.


It's not illegal to transfer money that way if the money itself is already accounted for. And in this case, it is. To prove a violation of this statute, you need to prove that they believed that the government did not know about the money and that by transferring it this way, they could prevent the government from detecting that they had said money. That's a tough sell when the money itself was very publicly obtained via an online defense fund account with multiple media outlets reporting on the amount of money collected.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#776 Jun 20 2012 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When the law in question involves secretly moving money, it kinda does

Fortunately, the law doesn't say "secretly". Just that you have to be intentionally making the transfers in a way to avoid reporting requirements.


You might want to re-read that law you linked to.


I'm not sure what law you think Jophiel linked to, but here's the federal law on the subject:

(a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Financial Institutions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508—
(1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by an order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508;
(2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by any order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508, that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.


Nothing in there about secrecy. Attempting to avoid triggering an automatic report by financial institutions based on a transaction amount set by the Sec. of Treasury is illegal, whether you openly declare such attempt or not.


Read the whole law. What do sections 5313 and 5325 say? Did you read them? How about 5326?


The point of this portion of the law is to make it illegal to intentionally structure money transactions so as to evade existing systems designed to detect money laundering (and the related illegalities associated with that), and to effectively overload the charges you can bring in such cases. But it's only illegal *if* you are attempting to prevent detection of some form of money laundering. Or to prevent the government from knowing where your money is coming from or going. That was not the case here. If they were receiving money in the form of bags of cash, and then carefully structuring deposits and withdrawals in order to prevent any government agencies from realizing that they are handling more money than they can legitimately account for *then* what they were doing is illegal.


It's not illegal to transfer money that way if the money itself is already accounted for. And in this case, it is. To prove a violation of this statute, you need to prove that they believed that the government did not know about the money and that by transferring it this way, they could prevent the government from detecting that they had said money. That's a tough sell when the money itself was very publicly obtained via an online defense fund account with multiple media outlets reporting on the amount of money collected.


It's against the law to cause or attempt to cause an institution to fail to report a transaction much the same way it is against the law to exceed the speed limit. The existence of pedestrians, vehicles, man made structures, officers of the law, nor tooth fairies affects the legality of the action.

You're wrong, whether you want to admit it or not.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 4:37pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#777 Jun 20 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
It's against the law to cause or attempt to cause an institution to fail to report a transaction...


Which is not what they were doing. The transactions were reported. What they avoided was an additional level of reporting for transactions exceeding $10k.

Follow the law far enough and you'll realize that simply adjusting the amounts in order to limit the reporting requirements is not by itself a violation of the law. It's only a violation if you're attempting to avoid having some other action detected. As I've said repeatedly, the difference is whether the person doing this clearly did so with the intent to prevent some agency from knowing that said money existed, where it came from, where it's going, or to otherwise make it harder to detect some form of money laundering. That is clearly not the case here.

Every section of that law refers to "in order to avoid <some other section of the law>". Even the legal definition of "structuring" includes that language. And when you follow the other sections, you'll find they refer to money laundering or other financial actions related to criminal activity or credit reporting or insurance handling, etc. This is why you could possibly argue that if they were attempting to conceal this money from the court, it *maybe* is a violation of the law. But it's not illegal by itself absent a finding of that sort.


If it was, then a **** of a lot of people violate this law every single day. And it's not a speeding ticket we're talking about. Like I said: Read the whole law, not just one little part.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#778 Jun 20 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Even if gbaji were right, isn't perjury and trying to cover that perjury (in this case, not disclosing how much money you had to the court in an effort to get a lower bail amount, and then structuring these deposits to keep from alerting the government that you lied to said court for bail purposes) illegal, therefore making this structuring illegal in gbaji's "it's only illegal if your trying to cover up another illegal activity" scenario?
#779 Jun 20 2012 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji is wrong. However, rather than waste a bunch of keystrokes arguing it with him, I just invite anyone who cares to click on the links and read for themselves what the law is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#780 Jun 20 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Belkira wrote:
Even if gbaji were right, isn't perjury and trying to cover that perjury (in this case, not disclosing how much money you had to the court in an effort to get a lower bail amount, and then structuring these deposits to keep from alerting the government that you lied to said court for bail purposes) illegal, therefore making this structuring illegal in gbaji's "it's only illegal if your trying to cover up another illegal activity" scenario?


Yes. As I've acknowledged at least a couple times already. If you can show that they intended to misrepresent their finances to the court in order to get a lower bond and the transfers were an attempt to conceal that fact *then* you'd have a case. But the mere fact of how they transferred the money isn't proof of criminal action nor can it be used backwards to prove intent to lie (otherwise the whole law is circular and becomes arbitrary). You have to show that they believed that the court was unaware of the defense fund, knew that the court was asking (or expecting) them to include the money in the defense fund when asking about their personal finances, and then prove that they knowingly transferred the money the way they did to conceal this (or to facilitate it).

It's certainly possible that there's evidence to show this. But what most people seem to be making the most noise about isn't sufficient IMO. Enough to look into it, certainly. But not proof. That's all I've been saying here. I have no clue if they were trying to cheat and hide/misuse that money. What I do know is merely having it, transferring it how they did, and even failing to mention it when asked about personal finances does not prove that this was the case. It honestly looks more to me like a couple people who assumed that the defense fund was separate from their personal finances, treated it like it was separate from their personal finances (there's no evidence I've heard that they went on a shopping spree with it or anything), but failed to take the official accounting steps required to legally make it separate from their personal finances.


Maybe I'm more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and not prejudge their actions, but I can absolutely see people not fully understanding what the court is asking when it talks about personal finances. Most people, when asked how much money they have think about cash on hand and in their bank account(s). Most would probably not think to include money in their 401k, or that IRA they put money into from time to time, or those bond certificates their parents gave them for their college education (unless they need to cash them in to pay off a pimp and buy back all their furniture or something). Are they trying to conceal money they have? Probably not. Most likely they just didn't think of it at the time. And a special fund set aside for a specific purpose (like a college fund or a defense fund) might absolutely not be thought of as "personal finances".


A lot of the law in this area (especially perjury) revolves around intent. You can't just work backwards from the actions, assume intent, and then assume violation of the law. Because if you do that then intent becomes meaningless. Everyone who transfers money in increments less than $10k must be in violation of the law, right? If we assume that if someone does that, it must have been to avoid some audit trail, which must have been done to avoid some illegality, so therefore they must have intended to avoid that outcome when they did it. Like I said though, that's circular logic. It always proves someone guilty, so it's a useless methodology to use.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#781 Jun 20 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If we assume that if someone does that, it must have been to avoid some audit trail, which must have been done to avoid some illegality

This is not true. Again, WHY you did it doesn't matter so long as the prosecutor shows you did it to intentionally circumvent the reporting limits.

This is why I invite people to read the laws themselves. No reason for them to read paragraph after paragraph of you giving erroneous information.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#782 Jun 20 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If we assume that if someone does that, it must have been to avoid some audit trail, which must have been done to avoid some illegality

This is not true. Again, WHY you did it doesn't matter so long as the prosecutor shows you did it to intentionally circumvent the reporting limits in order to avoid <insert laws on money laundering, credit reporting, FDIC, etc>.


Fixed that for you. Read the whole law, not just the selected bits you keep focusing on. Everyone who transfers money in amounts less than $10k in order to avoid additional auditing and paperwork is not in violation of the law. It's only a violation of the law if the intent is to avoid an audit which might detect violations of <list of other legal codes in the section quoted>. If you are not violating those other sections, then your avoidance of an audit which might detect that is meaningless.

Quote:
This is why I invite people to read the laws themselves.


Heaven forbid you follow your own advice!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#783 Jun 20 2012 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Read the whole law, not just the selected bits you keep focusing on.

Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#784 Jun 20 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
**
486 posts
I can't remember the author of this anecdote but I'm going to paraphrase it here.

"I wish I could be as sure of anything as Gbaji is on everything."
#785 Jun 20 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
BonYogi wrote:
I can't remember the author of this anecdote but I'm going to paraphrase it here.

"I wish I could be as sure of anything as Gbaji is on everything."

Yeah, but you'd still be wrong. I'll directly quote a movie with a similar point: "I'm Buzz Lightyear, I'm always sure!"



Yes, I just watched Toy Story 2.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#786 Jun 21 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I'm more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and not prejudge their actions,
But probably not.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#787 Jun 21 2012 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,638 posts
Question gbaji:

At what point do you stop defending this guy? I mean what does George Zimmerman have to do before that happens?
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#788 Jun 21 2012 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Vote Democrat
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#789 Jun 21 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Question gbaji:

At what point do you stop defending this guy? I mean what does George Zimmerman have to do before that happens?


I think it's time we start addressing the possibility that gbaji is related to (if not is) George Zimmerman. Considering gbaji's revelation about his tax situation, I'd say that they share an attitude about financial responsibility, at least.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#790 Jun 21 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Vote Democrat.
Please, the only reason he'd vote Democrat was because he was manipulated to do so.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 11:06am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#791 Jun 21 2012 at 9:44 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
I especially love how Gbaji's defense in subjects like this is always "but you didn't READ ALL THE THINGS" and yet he's always somehow completely incapable of providing specific references that hold up to scrutiny and still manage to prove his point.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#792 Jun 21 2012 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Vote Democrat.
Please, the only reason he'd vote Democrat was because he was manipulatedbrainwashed to do so.


FTFY, per the usual Gbajispeak

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 11:46am by Technogeek
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#793 Jun 21 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Question gbaji:

At what point do you stop defending this guy? I mean what does George Zimmerman have to do before that happens?


I think what you're missing here is that I'm *not* defending him. I'm challenging what I see as false assumptions being made by people about him. It might help you if you stop assuming that everyone must pick a side. I'm saying we should wait until all the facts are in and let those who are responsible for making an assessment of those facts do so. It's fine to speculate, but what I'm seeing is people insisting that he must be guilty because of X, when I don't see X as sufficient proof of guilt.

That's not a defense of him. That's me pointing out a flaw in someone's argument. Don't read any more than that into it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#794 Jun 21 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It might help you if you stop assuming that everyone must pick a side

Funny how Gbaji never picks a side and yet winds up opposite of most people around here and completely aligned with the usual suspects. Statistics is a harsh mistress.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#795 Jun 21 2012 at 7:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm challenging what I see as false assumptions being made by people...


Jophiel wrote:
Funny how Gbaji never picks a side and yet winds up opposite of most people around here and completely aligned with the usual suspects.


It's not really that surprising.

Quote:
Statistics is a harsh mistress.


Yes. If I'm pointing out what I see as flawed arguments being made by someone, it's a statistical likelihood that majority of my arguments will be against the "side" that the majority of the people are on. Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?


If this were a board dominated by conservatives, I'd be spending all my time pointing out the flaws in their arguments instead. Like I said though, most people just can't see past their "side" of an issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#796 Jun 21 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
If this were a board dominated by conservatives, I'd be spending all my time pointing out the flaws in their arguments instead. Like I said though, most people just can't see past their "side" of an issue.
Man, are you playing that "I'M BIPARTISAN! REALLY!" line hard, ain'cha?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#797 Jun 21 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Funny how Gbaji never picks a side and yet winds up opposite of most people around here and completely aligned with the usual suspects.
It's not really that surprising.

From the mouths of babes...
lolgaxe wrote:
Man, are you playing that "I'M BIPARTISAN! REALLY!" line hard, ain'cha?

He only goes on about how misguided and delusional Democrats are and how Obama is the worst thing since herpes and is destroying America because he's pointing out flaws in our arguments. His approach would be totally different if there were more conservatives here Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 8:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#798 Jun 21 2012 at 11:13 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
I think gbaji and Alma are the same creature.
#799 Jun 21 2012 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji should totally donate his IRS refund, in chunks of just under $10K, to Zimmerman in order to prove his point.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#800 Jun 22 2012 at 12:06 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
[quote=gbajiYes. If I'm pointing out what I see as flawed arguments being made by someone, it's a statistical likelihood that majority of my arguments will be against the "side" that the majority of the people are on. Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? [/quote]
Yeah, when you argue against truth, fact and common sense you'll tend to be against the majority.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#801 Jun 22 2012 at 5:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,221 posts
When's the last time anyone remembers Gbajovich saying anything more stringent to any of his fellow neocons around here than, "You're right for the wrong reason"?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 32 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (31)