5 ms·
In two out of the three given examples, the people involved admit to deliberately structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements. That is a crime, in and
by hapless 12y ago
In two out of the three given examples, the people involved admit to deliberately structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements. That is a crime, in and of itself. Ignorance is not a defense.
These people were given bad advice by bank tellers and accountants, but they are still guilty. Being offered a settlement by the IRS is more than they should have hoped for.
If anything, they're lucky to have been subject to civil forfeiture. In a criminal process, they would have lost all of the money, and also potentially spent time in prison.
- MarkPNeyer 12y ago"ignorance is not a defense" - It is a defense. Any reasonable person would accept "i did not know this thing i was doing, which hurts no one, was illegal" as defense against charges of a crime. It's just not a _legal_ defense because the legal system unreasonably expects people to know and comply with the massive, ever-growing battery of laws.
- bmelton 12y ago"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow." – James Madison
- cwp 12y agoNot only that, but the law in question explicitly references motive. Breaking a large deposit into smaller deposits is only illegal if you do it to avoid triggering reporting. So ignorance of the reporting requirements is a defence. If you didn't know it existed, how could you try to avoid it?
- cwp 12y agoIf that's the case, they should have been prosecuted. Then they would have had the opportunity to defend themselves. Civil forfeiture mocks the the idea of justice.
- dmix 12y agoOne hundred times - yes. There is a reason the judicial process exists. There is a dangerous trend where federal 3-letter agencies and the executive branch is trying to bypass due-process at every chance possible to make their jobs easier. It's even more amazing how many regular citizens come out supporting this activity. Often because they are 'tough on crime' or they think because they are criminals they deserve it or have no rights. This popular indifference to whether or not people charged with a crime should be treated as innocent until proven guilty is depressing. This quote keeps getting repeated recently but its important: "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." - Orson Welles
- hapless 12y ago"Opportunity?" They openly admit committing crimes to the press.