6 ms·

"And on June 17, Lacey is scheduled to be sentenced on the one count—international concealment of money laundering—on which the jury found him guilty. It comes

"And on June 17, Lacey is scheduled to be sentenced on the one count—international concealment of money laundering—on which the jury found him guilty. It comes with a possible sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison. Lacey plans to appeal his conviction on this count, and there seems like a good chance it will be successful, since the money he allegedly "concealed" was reported to the federal government with all the proper paperwork. But he could still face prison time as that appeals process plays out." How was he found guilty of concealed money when he reported it to begin with? Then could still serve prison time for it.

beaeglebeachh 2y ago
And how is it money laundering if it turned out the money wasn't proceeds of crime.
- brookst 2y ago
  I spent a few minutes trying to figure that out, but Reason is incredibly slanted, they just link to some even nuttier site, and even starting with news I couldn't find specifics of the one count he was convicted on. But I'd be a little skeptical of Reason's handwave "properly reported to the government". Reported on taxes? To SEC? As part of disclosure for this trial? One way it could be money laundering without being proceeds of a crime is if he took $1M from Pablo Escobar for a huge advertising commit and then refunded $900k to Able Paleo Bars, LLC for unused ad spend.
  - dannyobrien 2y ago
    What is this "nuttier" site you're talking about? Do you mean https://frontpageconfidential.com/aboutfpc/ https://frontpageconfidential.com/aboutfpc/ , the site run by Lacey and Larkin and their fellow journalists, in order to defend themselves?
  - webspinner 2y ago
    Reason is not slanted. It's a very libertarian site and a lot of people come from the left.
    - klausa 2y ago
      >X is not slanted. It's a <specific slant being described>.
      - webspinner 2y ago
        I meant like say brieghbart is, it's a conservative source. I've never known of reason to be such thing though.
        catlover76 2y ago
        [dead]
    - yareal 2y ago
      All news media has a bias, it's literally impossible to serve a finite news set and not exert some editorial control. However, if you describe a news site as (very political ideology) I think it's fair to consider it slanted.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        While that is philosophically true, but this thread is illustrating why that isn't a helpful perspective . Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. We could correctly call such an organisation "slanted", but it is missing the point that there some slants are privileged by virtue of leading the reader to act in a reasonable and rational manner while others don't. I'm not sure if the US - or the world - has any of those. But the generic "there is a slant" point is useless. What matters is what the slant leads people to do, what information the slant is omitting and whether said slant is a good one on balance. If calling a media organisations "slanted" doesn't imply "slanted [in a way I think is potentially bad and relevant]" then the word is useless and shouldn't be used.
  - Niten 2y ago
    Media Bias Fact Check ranks Reason as a "Right-Center" biased website with a "High" rating for factual reporting: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ They certainly approach stories with an editorial perspective, but they're generally factually reliable and hardly "incredibly slanted".
    - Retric 2y ago
      Reason’s libertarian bias sits outside the mainstream Left-Right axis of US political discourse. So what looks centrist or right leaning on a 2D scale is actually heavily biased in a different political direction.
      - yareal 2y ago
        I don't think there's much Left in US politics, unless you mean in the language of US politics, where somehow Democrats are considered "Left".
        Retric 2y ago
        Party stances are always going to reflect the country they operate in. On an absolute scale Republican’s support for expanding Medicare drug coverage was left leaning compared to at the time current law even though it’s to the right of many countries and Democrat’s stance on the issue.
        stareatgoats 2y ago
        yeah, the left/right dichotomy is gradually becoming outright meaningless - usually just sloppily slapped labels that fit an agenda. Important nuances go completely unnoticed in the left/right universe, like libertarians siding with communists, and neocons siding with democrats - or whoever thinks regime changing from above is a good idea. Anarchism, militarism, libertarianism, conservativism, fascism, welfarestateism, social democracy, etc, these are all useful terms. Left and right; not so much.
  - ianhawes 2y ago
    Reason would indeed seem slanted compared to traditional liberal media, specifically as it relates to not regurgitating the DOJ’s narrative. Happy Reason subscriber here.
    - fieryscribe 2y ago
      Fellow Reason subscriber here. They're more balanced than most.
  - ciabattabread 2y ago
    Reason may be "slanted", but you can follow their logic in their articles, regardless of your stance.
- dmurray 2y ago
  You could receive money legitimately (let's say, donations to your synagogue) and funnel it to politically disfavoured causes (for example, anti-war protesters in the Middle East). It doesn't fit the metaphor of money laundering, of turning dirty money into clean, but it's usually prosecuted under the same statutes.
  - petertodd 2y ago
    That isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is taking illegally gotten funds and turning it into apparently legal funds. What you're describing is fraud: you took money for one purpose, and used it for something the donators didn't want it used for. Notably, it is not money laundering to obscure the source of funds when they didn't come from an illicit source. Nor is it money laundering to simply obscure the source of funds, so they don't come from any apparent source. If that were money laundering, it would be illegal to withdraw cash from an ATM, which is obviously absurd.
    - bagels 2y ago
      What statute? I don't know either way what the actual definition is.
    - CPLX 2y ago
      Money laundering can be defined as concealing either or both the source and destination of the funds. Channeling legal money into illegal activities qualifies as well. Not clear either is applicable to this case however.
    - dmurray 2y ago
      No, the donators gave you the money to use as you see fit. You're not betraying their trust: you're betraying your government, by funding a movement with aims inimical to them. A relevant statute in the US is the USA PATRIOT Act [0], specifically Title III, which deals with "International money laundering abatement and terrorist financing". It absolutely does restrict transmission of clean money to non-favoured political entities, often in the same breath as it forbids actual money laundering. It does not forbid withdrawing cash from an ATM, but it does forbid a bank from issuing you an ATM card if they should have guessed you would use the money for the wrong purposes. [0] https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm
- refurb 2y ago
  Money laundering laws doesn't require that the money be proceeds of crime. It only requires that you do things in an attempt to obscure the source of the money. For example structuring cash deposits. If you have a pile of legitimate cash, say through a cash business (you pay all taxes), but you intentionally make multiple $9,000 deposits to avoid generating a CTR (currency transaction report for cash deposits over $10,000), congrats, you violated money laundering laws.
  - dale_glass 2y ago
    So out of curiosity, what if you run a business that just happens to generate $9K of cash regularly, for any reason? Are you supposed to risk keeping it on premises until enough adds up, or you should tell the bank to file a CTR, or something else?
    - dzonga 2y ago
      like tax evasion laws -- they're like a joker card/ wildcard -- to law enforcement. to be played when they wanna arrest you. that's what mobsters get nabbed on, corrupt gvt officials etc. it's not difficult to prove anyone has tax evaded.
    - mason55 2y ago
      It’s not the $9k deposit that’s illegal, it’s structuring your deposits to avoid the $10k limit. The same actions can be legal or illegal depending on your in intent. In your example, the $9k deposits are perfectly fine. Although if you really always deposit $9k you’ll probably get some questions.
    - refurb 2y ago
      You’re at risk of some over zealous prosecutor accusing you of structuring.
underseacables 2y ago
Overzealous prosecution.
- azinman2 2y ago
  How do you know that?
  - busterarm 2y ago
    Because we know that trying to destroy Backpage was the personal crusade of Cindy McCain and it became very personal. This has long been written about.
    - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
      Any links? John bang a Backpage ho, or why the hate?
      - etc-hosts 2y ago
        there's tons in Arizona media. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larkin-cindy-john-mccain-backpage-new-times-10773866 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larki...
    - paganel 2y ago
      > She is the widow of U.S. Senator John McCain from Arizona, who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Nepo-wife. And they were saying the Soviets were a decrepit society at the top, the US from today is not much better.
      - busterarm 2y ago
        It's worse than that. She was a rich heiress that he left his first wife for because Cindy had the bankroll to fund his political aspirations. He was as much of a leech as she is.
  - 2y ago
webspinner 2y ago
That's a question and a half. Since he reported it, it isn't hidden.
mozman 2y ago
This guy got into a pissing contest with the Arizona AG, which led to FOSTA/SESTA over the casual encounters page. This has years of history. I worked in a similar industry to backpage for 11 years.
- lazide 2y ago
  arguably, it is also helped get Kamala Harris into the White House. [https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-criminal-charges-against-senior https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kama...]
infinghxsg 2y ago
[dead]

beaeglebeachh 2y ago

And how is it money laundering if it turned out the money wasn't proceeds of crime.

brookst 2y ago
I spent a few minutes trying to figure that out, but Reason is incredibly slanted, they just link to some even nuttier site, and even starting with news I couldn't find specifics of the one count he was convicted on. But I'd be a little skeptical of Reason's handwave "properly reported to the government". Reported on taxes? To SEC? As part of disclosure for this trial? One way it could be money laundering without being proceeds of a crime is if he took $1M from Pablo Escobar for a huge advertising commit and then refunded $900k to Able Paleo Bars, LLC for unused ad spend.
- dannyobrien 2y ago
  What is this "nuttier" site you're talking about? Do you mean https://frontpageconfidential.com/aboutfpc/ https://frontpageconfidential.com/aboutfpc/ , the site run by Lacey and Larkin and their fellow journalists, in order to defend themselves?
- webspinner 2y ago
  Reason is not slanted. It's a very libertarian site and a lot of people come from the left.
  - klausa 2y ago
    >X is not slanted. It's a <specific slant being described>.
    - webspinner 2y ago
      I meant like say brieghbart is, it's a conservative source. I've never known of reason to be such thing though.
      - catlover76 2y ago
        [dead]
  - yareal 2y ago
    All news media has a bias, it's literally impossible to serve a finite news set and not exert some editorial control. However, if you describe a news site as (very political ideology) I think it's fair to consider it slanted.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      While that is philosophically true, but this thread is illustrating why that isn't a helpful perspective . Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. We could correctly call such an organisation "slanted", but it is missing the point that there some slants are privileged by virtue of leading the reader to act in a reasonable and rational manner while others don't. I'm not sure if the US - or the world - has any of those. But the generic "there is a slant" point is useless. What matters is what the slant leads people to do, what information the slant is omitting and whether said slant is a good one on balance. If calling a media organisations "slanted" doesn't imply "slanted [in a way I think is potentially bad and relevant]" then the word is useless and shouldn't be used.
- Niten 2y ago
  Media Bias Fact Check ranks Reason as a "Right-Center" biased website with a "High" rating for factual reporting: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ They certainly approach stories with an editorial perspective, but they're generally factually reliable and hardly "incredibly slanted".
  - Retric 2y ago
    Reason’s libertarian bias sits outside the mainstream Left-Right axis of US political discourse. So what looks centrist or right leaning on a 2D scale is actually heavily biased in a different political direction.
    - yareal 2y ago
      I don't think there's much Left in US politics, unless you mean in the language of US politics, where somehow Democrats are considered "Left".
      - Retric 2y ago
        Party stances are always going to reflect the country they operate in. On an absolute scale Republican’s support for expanding Medicare drug coverage was left leaning compared to at the time current law even though it’s to the right of many countries and Democrat’s stance on the issue.
        stareatgoats 2y ago
        yeah, the left/right dichotomy is gradually becoming outright meaningless - usually just sloppily slapped labels that fit an agenda. Important nuances go completely unnoticed in the left/right universe, like libertarians siding with communists, and neocons siding with democrats - or whoever thinks regime changing from above is a good idea. Anarchism, militarism, libertarianism, conservativism, fascism, welfarestateism, social democracy, etc, these are all useful terms. Left and right; not so much.
- ianhawes 2y ago
  Reason would indeed seem slanted compared to traditional liberal media, specifically as it relates to not regurgitating the DOJ’s narrative. Happy Reason subscriber here.
  - fieryscribe 2y ago
    Fellow Reason subscriber here. They're more balanced than most.
- ciabattabread 2y ago
  Reason may be "slanted", but you can follow their logic in their articles, regardless of your stance.
dmurray 2y ago
You could receive money legitimately (let's say, donations to your synagogue) and funnel it to politically disfavoured causes (for example, anti-war protesters in the Middle East). It doesn't fit the metaphor of money laundering, of turning dirty money into clean, but it's usually prosecuted under the same statutes.
- petertodd 2y ago
  That isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is taking illegally gotten funds and turning it into apparently legal funds. What you're describing is fraud: you took money for one purpose, and used it for something the donators didn't want it used for. Notably, it is not money laundering to obscure the source of funds when they didn't come from an illicit source. Nor is it money laundering to simply obscure the source of funds, so they don't come from any apparent source. If that were money laundering, it would be illegal to withdraw cash from an ATM, which is obviously absurd.
  - bagels 2y ago
    What statute? I don't know either way what the actual definition is.
  - CPLX 2y ago
    Money laundering can be defined as concealing either or both the source and destination of the funds. Channeling legal money into illegal activities qualifies as well. Not clear either is applicable to this case however.
  - dmurray 2y ago
    No, the donators gave you the money to use as you see fit. You're not betraying their trust: you're betraying your government, by funding a movement with aims inimical to them. A relevant statute in the US is the USA PATRIOT Act [0], specifically Title III, which deals with "International money laundering abatement and terrorist financing". It absolutely does restrict transmission of clean money to non-favoured political entities, often in the same breath as it forbids actual money laundering. It does not forbid withdrawing cash from an ATM, but it does forbid a bank from issuing you an ATM card if they should have guessed you would use the money for the wrong purposes. [0] https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm
refurb 2y ago
Money laundering laws doesn't require that the money be proceeds of crime. It only requires that you do things in an attempt to obscure the source of the money. For example structuring cash deposits. If you have a pile of legitimate cash, say through a cash business (you pay all taxes), but you intentionally make multiple $9,000 deposits to avoid generating a CTR (currency transaction report for cash deposits over $10,000), congrats, you violated money laundering laws.
- dale_glass 2y ago
  So out of curiosity, what if you run a business that just happens to generate $9K of cash regularly, for any reason? Are you supposed to risk keeping it on premises until enough adds up, or you should tell the bank to file a CTR, or something else?
  - dzonga 2y ago
    like tax evasion laws -- they're like a joker card/ wildcard -- to law enforcement. to be played when they wanna arrest you. that's what mobsters get nabbed on, corrupt gvt officials etc. it's not difficult to prove anyone has tax evaded.
  - mason55 2y ago
    It’s not the $9k deposit that’s illegal, it’s structuring your deposits to avoid the $10k limit. The same actions can be legal or illegal depending on your in intent. In your example, the $9k deposits are perfectly fine. Although if you really always deposit $9k you’ll probably get some questions.
  - refurb 2y ago
    You’re at risk of some over zealous prosecutor accusing you of structuring.

underseacables 2y ago

Overzealous prosecution.

azinman2 2y ago
How do you know that?
- busterarm 2y ago
  Because we know that trying to destroy Backpage was the personal crusade of Cindy McCain and it became very personal. This has long been written about.
  - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
    Any links? John bang a Backpage ho, or why the hate?
    - etc-hosts 2y ago
      there's tons in Arizona media. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larkin-cindy-john-mccain-backpage-new-times-10773866 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larki...
  - paganel 2y ago
    > She is the widow of U.S. Senator John McCain from Arizona, who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Nepo-wife. And they were saying the Soviets were a decrepit society at the top, the US from today is not much better.
    - busterarm 2y ago
      It's worse than that. She was a rich heiress that he left his first wife for because Cindy had the bankroll to fund his political aspirations. He was as much of a leech as she is.
- 2y ago

webspinner 2y ago

That's a question and a half. Since he reported it, it isn't hidden.

mozman 2y ago

This guy got into a pissing contest with the Arizona AG, which led to FOSTA/SESTA over the casual encounters page. This has years of history. I worked in a similar industry to backpage for 11 years.

lazide 2y ago
arguably, it is also helped get Kamala Harris into the White House. [https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-criminal-charges-against-senior https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kama...]

infinghxsg 2y ago

[dead]