6 ms·

Money laundering is a vague term used to justify intrusive government overreach. If you have $16,000 in cash and deposit $9,000 in your bank account one day an

Money laundering is a vague term used to justify intrusive government overreach. If you have $16,000 in cash and deposit $9,000 in your bank account one day and $7,000 the next, you are a criminal guilty of structuring.

eli 9y ago
That's not what Manafort/Gates were accused of doing.
- valuearb 9y ago
  They are accused of being unregistered agents for the Russian government, violating foreign influence laws, and Manafort bank fraud by lying on a loan application. The money laundering charges were used as leverage to get Gates to turn, which makes one wonder if the government should be allowed such a powerful tool that can be misused against the innocent. Shouldn’t the prosecution be focused on proving their real crimes and not a victimless reporting statute?
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    They were both indicted on tax fraud. By laundering that 30 million, they were also evading taxes on it. The victim is the US government and by extension the US generally. The "reporting requirement" they evaded was... paying taxes. > “Manafort and Gates generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of their Ukraine work. From approximately 2006 through the present, Manafort and Gates engaged in a scheme to hide income from United States authorities, while enjoying the use of the money,” the indictment charges. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-mueller-files-new-charges-in-manafort-gates-case/2018/02/22/7db99c9c-1716-11e8-8b08-027a6ccb38eb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/speci...
  - matthewdgreen 9y ago
    I don't think the crimes were 'structuring' or some technical violation. They moved millions of dollars into offshore accounts (some of which appear to be the financial proceeds of the crimes you mentioned above), while failing to report the income or the accounts to the IRS.
ncallaway 9y ago
That's completely false. That situation you just described is absolutely not structuring. Here's the fact pattern that _would_ make you a criminal guilty of structuring: "You have $16,000 in cash. Knowing that there are reporting events that trigger some additional scrutiny of transactions about $10,000 you deliberately break the deposit into two separate transactions with the purpose of avoiding that scrutiny. As such, you deposit $9,000 in your bank account one day and $7,000 the next". That's structuring. It requires the intent of avoiding the scrutiny. If you broke your deposits into two transactions for any other reason, it is not against the law. The definition of structuring is 31 USC § 5324. > 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 of Public Law 91–508 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324
- valuearb 9y ago
  Good luck proving it was not intended to avoid reporting when the DA decides to make an example of you.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    If you do it one time, I suspect you're not going to get dinged for structuring. If you do it all the time, you'd want to have a pretty solid explanation for why.
    - cgmg 9y ago
      So, guilty until proven innocent?
      - ncallaway 9y ago
        In a criminal context the burden of proof would rest on the prosecution to prove a nefarious purpose. This is because—as in all criminal cases—we presume innocence and put the burden of proof on the prosecutor.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
elvirs 9y ago
I have a wholesale business and some of my clients like to make deposits in cash. and im talking about hundreds of thousands every year. I never had a question asked as long as I filed them as they are supposed to - sales, not a gift od whatever.

eli 9y ago

That's not what Manafort/Gates were accused of doing.

valuearb 9y ago
They are accused of being unregistered agents for the Russian government, violating foreign influence laws, and Manafort bank fraud by lying on a loan application. The money laundering charges were used as leverage to get Gates to turn, which makes one wonder if the government should be allowed such a powerful tool that can be misused against the innocent. Shouldn’t the prosecution be focused on proving their real crimes and not a victimless reporting statute?
- roywiggins 9y ago
  They were both indicted on tax fraud. By laundering that 30 million, they were also evading taxes on it. The victim is the US government and by extension the US generally. The "reporting requirement" they evaded was... paying taxes. > “Manafort and Gates generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of their Ukraine work. From approximately 2006 through the present, Manafort and Gates engaged in a scheme to hide income from United States authorities, while enjoying the use of the money,” the indictment charges. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-mueller-files-new-charges-in-manafort-gates-case/2018/02/22/7db99c9c-1716-11e8-8b08-027a6ccb38eb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/speci...
- matthewdgreen 9y ago
  I don't think the crimes were 'structuring' or some technical violation. They moved millions of dollars into offshore accounts (some of which appear to be the financial proceeds of the crimes you mentioned above), while failing to report the income or the accounts to the IRS.

ncallaway 9y ago

That's completely false. That situation you just described is absolutely not structuring. Here's the fact pattern that _would_ make you a criminal guilty of structuring: "You have $16,000 in cash. Knowing that there are reporting events that trigger some additional scrutiny of transactions about $10,000 you deliberately break the deposit into two separate transactions with the purpose of avoiding that scrutiny. As such, you deposit $9,000 in your bank account one day and $7,000 the next". That's structuring. It requires the intent of avoiding the scrutiny. If you broke your deposits into two transactions for any other reason, it is not against the law. The definition of structuring is 31 USC § 5324. > 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 of Public Law 91–508 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324

valuearb 9y ago
Good luck proving it was not intended to avoid reporting when the DA decides to make an example of you.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  If you do it one time, I suspect you're not going to get dinged for structuring. If you do it all the time, you'd want to have a pretty solid explanation for why.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    So, guilty until proven innocent?
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      In a criminal context the burden of proof would rest on the prosecution to prove a nefarious purpose. This is because—as in all criminal cases—we presume innocence and put the burden of proof on the prosecutor.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

elvirs 9y ago

I have a wholesale business and some of my clients like to make deposits in cash. and im talking about hundreds of thousands every year. I never had a question asked as long as I filed them as they are supposed to - sales, not a gift od whatever.