3 ms·

> One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime. I

by from 4y ago

> One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime. I don't think this is true in the US. Lawyers do not have any obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or laws that would require this and there are other things like the text below that would make prosecuting a lawyer for this very difficult, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957 > (1)the term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument (as defined in section 1956(c)(5) of this title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title, but such term *does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution;* https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-105000-money-laundering https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-105000-money-laundering > Because the Department firmly believes that attorneys representing clients in criminal matters must not be hampered in their ability to effectively and ethically represent their clients within the bounds of the law, the Department, as a matter of policy, will not prosecute attorneys under § 1957 based upon the receipt of property constituting bona fide fees for the legitimate representation in a criminal matter, except if (1) *there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the attorney had actual knowledge of the illegal origin of the specific property received (prosecution is not permitted if the only proof of knowledge is evidence of willful blindness);* and (2) such evidence does not consist of (a) confidential communications made by the client preliminary to and with regard to undertaking representation in the criminal matter; or (b) confidential communications made during the course of representation in the criminal matter; or (c) other information obtained by the attorney during the course of the representation and in furtherance of the obligation to effectively represent the client.

chollida1 4y ago
I appreciate your response and this is what I also countered with, though not as nicely cited:) this is a good response https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-assets-to-pay-attorney-fees-a-brief-primer-on-the-pitfalls/ https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-a... Turns out its not black and white as people expect - lawyers fees can be clawed back due to asset forfeiture. > Federal forfeiture laws, on the other hand, pose a different kind of risk for lawyers — one that the Safe Harbor Provision does not protect against. Forfeiture laws are premised, in part, on the notion that tainted assets belong to the government as of the date the underlying offense was committed - while its true that courts have decided that taking all of a persons money so they can't pay for their defense has been ruled illegal by the courts the amount of money that lawyers think the client has can be significantly reduced by the courts. So if SBF has say $20M now, the courts can claw back 75% of that leaving the client with far less to pay than the lawyers originally though. Or put another way, you are entitled to a defense, you are not entitled to have unlimited funds to pay for your defense. Also given that the money is coming from SBF' dad( a third party) and not SBF this seems to be relevant. > Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held in a divided decision that the Safe Harbor Provision does not apply in instances whereupon an attorney “receives and deposits” tainted funds from a third-party payer.
- from 4y ago
  Yes that's true, in fact they can freeze some of your untainted money pending trial in order to preserve it for forfeiture. I just don't think the lawyer would get in trouble for it and in the worst case would have to give back some of the money. If you read the Blair decision it is way different than this case because he was laundering money on behalf of his narcotics trafficking clients through real estate.

by from 4y ago

chollida1 4y ago

I appreciate your response and this is what I also countered with, though not as nicely cited:) this is a good response https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-assets-to-pay-attorney-fees-a-brief-primer-on-the-pitfalls/ https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-a... Turns out its not black and white as people expect - lawyers fees can be clawed back due to asset forfeiture. > Federal forfeiture laws, on the other hand, pose a different kind of risk for lawyers — one that the Safe Harbor Provision does not protect against. Forfeiture laws are premised, in part, on the notion that tainted assets belong to the government as of the date the underlying offense was committed - while its true that courts have decided that taking all of a persons money so they can't pay for their defense has been ruled illegal by the courts the amount of money that lawyers think the client has can be significantly reduced by the courts. So if SBF has say $20M now, the courts can claw back 75% of that leaving the client with far less to pay than the lawyers originally though. Or put another way, you are entitled to a defense, you are not entitled to have unlimited funds to pay for your defense. Also given that the money is coming from SBF' dad( a third party) and not SBF this seems to be relevant. > Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held in a divided decision that the Safe Harbor Provision does not apply in instances whereupon an attorney “receives and deposits” tainted funds from a third-party payer.

from 4y ago
Yes that's true, in fact they can freeze some of your untainted money pending trial in order to preserve it for forfeiture. I just don't think the lawyer would get in trouble for it and in the worst case would have to give back some of the money. If you read the Blair decision it is way different than this case because he was laundering money on behalf of his narcotics trafficking clients through real estate.