3 ms·

Criminal charges require the DA to prove your intent, not the other way around. If you want to cry about the lack of due process in civil forfeiture, I will be

Criminal charges require the DA to prove your intent, not the other way around. If you want to cry about the lack of due process in civil forfeiture, I will be with you 100%. Your complaint was about _criminal_ structuring, which puts a significant burden of proof on the prosecutor and not on the defendant

oh_sigh 9y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-from-a-gas-station-owner-they-still-refuse-to-give-it-back/2017/10/16/57828500-b296-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.77016847f6b0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-fr...
- ncallaway 9y ago
  That's civil, not criminal. > If you want to cry about the lack of due process in civil forfeiture, I will be with you 100 Edit: stike that, I didn't see the guilty plea to structuring. This was a criminal case. Edit: I will note the fact pattern in the WaPo article _is_ much closer to the one I described above. Kwon was breaking his transactions into smaller deposits to avoid paperwork (which is distinct from scrutiny, but not massively distinct). The burden of proof argument is also not reached in this case. I doubt the prosecution would have been able to prove that Kwon was actually structuring (given that it seems likely he could establish the distinction of avoiding _paperwork_ and avoiding _scrutiny_ to a jury). Still, this case has no bearing on burden of proof, as it was resolved by a guilty plea. I agree that this case shows a fairly clear failure of prosecutorial discretion. I don't think it has any relevance towards a burden of proof debate about intent. Lastly, that was some _really_ bad advice provided by the bank teller. Like...very very bad.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Sorry, I should have quoted the specific parts I was trying to refer to, but I'm on my phone and it is super annoying to do any text operations. But yes, I was specifically calling out the guy who pled guilty...maybe he just had a bad lawyer, but I would have to assume that he pled guilty because of the fear of god the DA was putting in him regarding this 'structuring'
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      Yea, I had the same problem. Was on mobile and confused by the multiple cases in the article. I edited after a more thorough reading and better understanding. I think this case shows more problems with prosecutorial discretion, and the absolute reliance on plea deals in the system—that insanely incentive people to accept plea deals even when innocent. Don't get me wrong, I think our criminal justice system is broken in a lot of ways. I also think there are lots of overly broad statutes that criminalize normal behavior and leave people exposed to selective prosecution. All that said, I don't think this particular statute is that problematic.
valuearb 9y ago
The Kwon case demonstrates that the government doesn’t have to prove squat. They’ll keep your money and bleed you in court till you fold.
- jmcmichael 9y ago
  According to an article in the Washington Post[1], the Kwon case resulted in an outcry that caused Congress to change its guidelines, adding the additional requirement that the IRS must show the money in question are the profits of criminal activity. That Kwon hasn't yet received his money back appears to be a bureaucratic problem, not statutory. Even given all of this, the Kwon case has more to do with the tax court than it does the Federal criminal courts. I do believe that money laundering laws as currently written are often abused, however I don't think the Kwon case demonstrates what you assert. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-from-a-gas-station-owner-they-still-refuse-to-give-it-back/2017/10/16/57828500-b296-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-fr...

oh_sigh 9y ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-from-a-gas-station-owner-they-still-refuse-to-give-it-back/2017/10/16/57828500-b296-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.77016847f6b0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-fr...

ncallaway 9y ago
That's civil, not criminal. > If you want to cry about the lack of due process in civil forfeiture, I will be with you 100 Edit: stike that, I didn't see the guilty plea to structuring. This was a criminal case. Edit: I will note the fact pattern in the WaPo article _is_ much closer to the one I described above. Kwon was breaking his transactions into smaller deposits to avoid paperwork (which is distinct from scrutiny, but not massively distinct). The burden of proof argument is also not reached in this case. I doubt the prosecution would have been able to prove that Kwon was actually structuring (given that it seems likely he could establish the distinction of avoiding _paperwork_ and avoiding _scrutiny_ to a jury). Still, this case has no bearing on burden of proof, as it was resolved by a guilty plea. I agree that this case shows a fairly clear failure of prosecutorial discretion. I don't think it has any relevance towards a burden of proof debate about intent. Lastly, that was some _really_ bad advice provided by the bank teller. Like...very very bad.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Sorry, I should have quoted the specific parts I was trying to refer to, but I'm on my phone and it is super annoying to do any text operations. But yes, I was specifically calling out the guy who pled guilty...maybe he just had a bad lawyer, but I would have to assume that he pled guilty because of the fear of god the DA was putting in him regarding this 'structuring'
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    Yea, I had the same problem. Was on mobile and confused by the multiple cases in the article. I edited after a more thorough reading and better understanding. I think this case shows more problems with prosecutorial discretion, and the absolute reliance on plea deals in the system—that insanely incentive people to accept plea deals even when innocent. Don't get me wrong, I think our criminal justice system is broken in a lot of ways. I also think there are lots of overly broad statutes that criminalize normal behavior and leave people exposed to selective prosecution. All that said, I don't think this particular statute is that problematic.

valuearb 9y ago

The Kwon case demonstrates that the government doesn’t have to prove squat. They’ll keep your money and bleed you in court till you fold.

jmcmichael 9y ago
According to an article in the Washington Post[1], the Kwon case resulted in an outcry that caused Congress to change its guidelines, adding the additional requirement that the IRS must show the money in question are the profits of criminal activity. That Kwon hasn't yet received his money back appears to be a bureaucratic problem, not statutory. Even given all of this, the Kwon case has more to do with the tax court than it does the Federal criminal courts. I do believe that money laundering laws as currently written are often abused, however I don't think the Kwon case demonstrates what you assert. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-from-a-gas-station-owner-they-still-refuse-to-give-it-back/2017/10/16/57828500-b296-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-irs-seized-59000-fr...