10 ms·
When It's a Crime to Withdraw Money from Your Bank
- tantalor 11y agoThe government has the burden to prove that the defendant knew about the reporting requirement and intended to evade it... this is quite unlike many of the regulatory crimes that can ensnare the unsophisticated. So this is a situation where ignorance of the law does excuse violating it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
- stephengillie 11y agoPart of the purpose of laws is to act as a deterrent. This can't happen if people are ignorant of them.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI have an extremely difficult time believing that a past member of the legislative branch of the government is unaware of a law. That's your job. To know the law.
- musername 11y agoBut if so, it just shows that there are way too many laws.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoNo, it's his job to write the law. But... Too many 2000-page bills. Too many "you have to pass it to know what's in it" bills. They can write it, and still not know what it says. But the hammer should fall on them for that, too, because if they had done a decent job writing it, it wouldn't be so hard to know what it says.
- anigbrowl 11y agoIndeed, the Speaker of the House is arguably the most powerful member of the legislative branch. In the disastrous event that the President and Vice-President die or are otherwise incapacitated, the Speaker is next in line to head the government. In his or her legislative capacity, the Speaker also wields a vast amount of power, (largely) deciding which legislation comes up for debate or vote, and what sort of practices are acceptable in the legislative chamber.
- perfTerm 11y agoYea I'm a nobody and I know about over 10,000 dollar transaction reports. Anyone with actual assets sure should
- walshemj 11y agoWell a load of Journalists in the UK got of with the argument that they didn't know that bribing police officers/civil service wasn't illegal. Of course the ones who got paid are doing 3 years in jail (and will probably lose all their pensions) whist the hacks got off scott free
- rdtsc 11y agoNot necessarily. The purpose of some laws are entrapment, getting the ability to harass, prosecute, or in general make life difficult for certain people. Some function as catch-alls to be able to slap arbitrarily high number of charges onto someone.
- maxerickson 11y agoIt's not illegal to make repeated cash transactions less than $10,000. It's illegal to make repeated cash transactions less than $10,000 with the intent to evade the reporting requirements. So if you are not aware of the reporting requirements it is very unlikely that you are violating the law (you certainly aren't violating the reasonable spirit of the law, you may not escape prosecution...).
- sliverstorm 11y agoIn other words the crime is the intent, so it's impossible to commit the crime without the intent! (Unlike the prototypical crime which is the act)
- maxerickson 11y agoI'm pretty sure they only bother prosecuting cases where the act is committed. I don't think it is so far away from other crimes where intent is evaluated (like murder vs manslaughter).
- mentat 11y agoThey've certainly been doing it without evidence of intent. It's been a huge deal. http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2015/02/irs-seizes-millions-from-law-abiding-businesses-3.html http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2015...
- maxerickson 11y agoThe first business mentioned in that article certainly did structure their transactions with the intent of avoiding reporting regulations, under the advice of their accountant: Convenience-store distribution is a cash-intensive business, and Hirsch said his accountant advised him that he should keep the company's deposits below $10,000 because banks didn't like the paperwork involved with Currency Transaction Reports. The article states But there was no evidence of criminal activity, not that there was no evidence of intent (as the section I quoted makes clear, the intent was obvious). Please note that I'm not making statements in favor of the law in these comments, just characterizing the facts as I see them. ETA: as I keep reading, the second business was also intentionally avoiding the reporting requirements (after a teller told them how). The third one does not directly state that they were trying to avoid the reporting requirements.
- pluma 11y agoIt's not about knowledge of the law, it's about intent. Ignorance is not an excuse, but it can diminish the crime if the crime is defined in a way that requires intent. For example, intent can be the difference between murder ("first degree" to Americans) and recklessly causing someone to die. If you poison someone's food and they die, it's murder. If you unwittingly poisoned the food, it's not, but you may be held accountable for a different crime (i.e. recklessness that resulted in death). This distinction is okay. In fact I'd argue it's expected. EDIT: Heck, if intent were irrelevant, it'd even be legal to plan to kill or harm people as long as you don't fully follow through. If you caught a terrorist before the act, you'd have to let them go because they haven't yet actually harmed anyone.
- thwarted 11y agoHeck, if intent were irrelevant, it'd even be legal to plan to kill or harm people as long as you don't fully follow through. If you caught a terrorist before the act, you'd have to let them go because they haven't yet actually harmed anyone. (IANAL, and these questions are meant only to incite thought or details (if anyone has any)) Is the state of being a terrorist the act of terrorizing or the thought of doing something that is terrorizing? If it's the latter, how is that different than a thought crime? Even if it's planned, but never executed, is one a terrorist? How does one distinguish between having planned but never intending to execute vs having planned but didn't get around to execute? Is a plan that is never executed a failed plan? There is a distinction between "murder" and "conspiracy to commit murder", the former being the act and the latter being participation in the planning. If the actor attempts to terrorize and no one is actually terrorized, has an act of terrorism been committed? If a program is designed, but never written, is it software? If a program is written, but never executed, is it software?
- perfTerm 11y agoI think the difference lies in the planning. Sure, you can think "wow if I blew this place up it'd really mess things up here", but if you think that and then set out to buy fertilizer and an suv, that's obviously a lot more actionable than a "thought crime". The law doesn't punish people who have drastic thoughts, it punishes people who have drastic thoughts and then bring them up to associates as something not so drastic. I dunno, that's the difference to me
- andrewstuart2 11y agoThere are two laws/rules in question. A. Transactions above $10,000 must be reported by the bank. B. Bank customers can't structure withdrawals deliberately to evade the reporting requirement. Ignorance of the reporting law de facto means that you haven't violated the evasion law. You can't deliberately evade something you know nothing about.
- Qantourisc 11y agoIn my opinion ignorance should be allowed. Unless: there was a conflict (which would require you to figure out what is the law on the subject); you endangered someone; clear cases of don't do to other what you don't want done to you. It's even impossible to know the law, how can any SANE person request to do the impossible ?
- aidenn0 11y agoYes. There are many other laws where that is the case. Part of the idea is that if you do something wrong because you think it's legal... well you still should have known it was wrong. With this law, the actual "wrong thing" is trying to avoid the reporting requirement. If you just happen to need $8000 every week, then you aren't trying to avoid the reporting requirement, so you haven't violated the law.
- mikeash 11y agoOn one hand, this seems almost like a Spinal Tap sort of situation. If you want to make it illegal to evade the reporting requirements by withdrawing $8,000 repeatedly, then write the law to require reporting $8,000, or whatever amount you're after. On the other hand, the law is written such that it only applies to people who are aware of the law and intended to circumvent reporting. It seems like an easy case that withdrawing $1.7 million in increments under $10,000 is intentional, and that the guy who was Speaker of the House at the time that the law was updated by Congress would know that the law exists. As is often the case, it seems like a bad person violating a bad law and it's hard to get worked up over either.
- TEMPLEOS_DEV 11y agoThey don't have to. Structuring transactions to avoid reporting laws is also a crime. Periodic withdrawals of $9,999 won't save you.
- MCRed 11y agoA crime is when something hurts someone. The word "crime" is a moral judgement. Here it is merely illegal. That non-crimes are made illegal is an indicator of corruption. When crimes are made legal - eg: kidnapping people for doing something that isn't a crime, as this law does, then you have corruption. Enough of that and you have tyranny. It's easy to remember the difference if you look at it this way: The nazis murdering the jews was a crime, but it was perfectly legal.
- jperras 11y agoWhat you've described is known as smurfing, and it is quite illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring
- Frozenlock 11y agoSo... planning your actions to respect the law is illegal. Glorious.
- jakeogh 11y agoAnd powerful people in the gov/banking complex want to abandon cash. Great marketing.
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoIt is not about marketing, it is about control. I understand your point, but the money laundering laws and the abandoning of cash all leads into one direction: The government shall be in control, who uses money and for what reason. As much I sympathize with the need to control money laundering and tax avoiding, I fear that our basic freedom rights are in grave danger. When I have to ask the government, before I can buy a car (with cash ... at least in Europe it is still normal to buy used cars from private people with cash) or have to fear the grip of the FBI, because I am reported by the bank, my freedom rights are hurt. Also there where even small merchants accused, since they put sums <$10.000 repeatedly in their account. Something that is normal, when you earn <$10.000 in cash during the weak and empty your cash box at the end of week. Don't make your whole population into offenders, because you want to prosecute some crimes!
- jakeogh 11y agoIt's easy to see how you might interpret my snarky comment that way, but I agree with what you said about control except I would go further. I think people should be able to do whatever they like with their money (and what they decide is money), no government involvement whatsoever. Taxes are theft. If the gov "needs" our property, they should make the case; and if someone agrees, they can donate.
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoI did think, that your comment was mostly ironical. I also know this thinking, that taxes are theft. But that is just one viewpoint. The other is, that taxes help to build a community, to build infrastructure, to build the internet ... (remember: the internet started as military network). Taxes are necessary, to help those that are weak and have not so much possibilities in life. To help those, that can not buy their schooling ... Before (gov. funded) public schooling was started, reading and writing was a privilege of less than 10% of the society. I would even go as far, that many of our today's achievements are because of taxes (only taking schools into account). Without public schools, we might have still steam machines. The fast successes of science are because so many people have access to education. Even you and me might be still life in some underprivileged village and reap noggins without (tax paid) public schooling.
- vonklaus 11y agoIs paying hush money illegal? This is essentially how no-competes and NDAs work sometimes. An employer offers you some amount of your salary on exit, and asks you to sign a document agreeing not to disclose things you learned there. Further, while I am aware that transactions above 10K are flagged, so what? If you have paid taxes on the money, you can do what you want with it. IANAL but I think you can withdraw any amount, it is just flagged and reported by the teller.
- jordan0day 11y agoNo, I don't believe it's necessarily illegal to pay someone "hush money" (though it probably depends! laws are awfully vague). I do believe it's illegal to demand to be paid "hush money", though, normally referred to as "blackmail". Presumably the reason the accused used structuring, even if a "hush money" payment itself was legal, was that they would have had to explain why they were making such a large withdrawal -- which doesn't really help for keeping things "hushed".
- JoshTriplett 11y ago> I do believe it's illegal to demand to be paid "hush money", though, normally referred to as "blackmail". Depends on the jurisdiction. If the act being covered up is illegal, then someone knowing about it is obligated to report it or be an accomplice after the fact, regardless of money changing hands. On the other hand, if the act being covered up is not illegal, merely embarrassing (classic example: an extramarital affair), then it would depend on whether blackmail itself is a crime in itself or only an extension of some other crime. The description at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail would suggest that, in the US, blackmail would be a crime only when some other crime is being covered up. I don't know if that's accurate or complete.
- s73v3r 11y agoIt's illegal if the hush money is being paid to cover up a crime, or other illegal activity.
- ikeboy 11y agoThe "lying to FBI" charge is arguably the more important problem with this story. See https://popehat.com/2015/05/29/dennis-hastert-and-federal-prosecutorial-power/ https://popehat.com/2015/05/29/dennis-hastert-and-federal-pr...
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIf he had been honest, could that not be used against him in court for past crimes?
- gnopgnip 11y agoHe should have spoken with a lawyer before talking to the FBI.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoYou should ALWAYS talk to a lawyer before speaking to any law enforcement.
- avalaunch 11y agoExcept sometimes your silence will be used against you: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-t... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
- defen 11y agoThis is why, if you ever want to extort money from someone, you have your lawyer talk to their lawyer first. I'm sure they could have set up an LLC for the extortionist/victim to perform "market research" or something.
- DaveWalk 11y agoAnd don't forget the income tax; according to the article, even extortion must be taxed as per the Supreme Court, 1952.
- mirimir 11y agoYes, of course ;) But seriously, let's say that I'm being blackmailed, and that it's about something that's either not illegal, or where statute of limitations has run out. Can't I just talk to my lawyer, and work out a payment system that doesn't flag me for money laundering?
- anigbrowl 11y agoAbsolutely. I don't understand why Hastert didn't just have his lawyer set up a trust of some sort. There are so many ways to do this without attracting attention that it's not funny.
- mirimir 11y agoRight. For example, late Senator Strom Thurmond discreetly supported his illegitimate daughter Essie Mae.[0] Her mother was only 16 years old when impregnated. I am not even implying that blackmail was involved, by the way. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/essie-mae-on-strom-thurmond/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/essie-mae-on-strom-thurmond/
- stephengillie 11y agoFrom the unfortunately dead post of TEMPLEOS_DEV They don't have to. Structuring transactions to avoid reporting laws is also a crime. Periodic withdrawals of $9,999 won't save you.
- hnhivemind 11y agoWhat's up with that shadow banning?
- anigbrowl 11y agoExplanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308017
- dang 11y agoI believe that particular account is someone else pretending to be Terry, which (if true) is an obnoxious thing to do. We unkilled this one comment because it was unobjectionable (and in fact did so before seeing this subthread), but I'm not unbanning the account. Soon users will be able to unkill comments on a case-by-case basis [1], which I hope will render superfluous the tedious genre of shadowban outrage subthread. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9318675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9318675
- anigbrowl 11y agoThanks for the clarification Dan, as well as this feature improvement.
- spinlock 11y agoThis case is why I believe it's pointless to try to protect your privacy: even if you just withdraw < $10,000 to avoid notice, you've committed a crime. But, if you withdraw more than $10k all the time (then deposit it back in) you haven't committed a crime and that $10k you needed for hush money gets lost in the noise.
- calebm 11y agoHow about when it's from your bank but from someone else's account? I think that satisfies the crime predicate :)
- splittist 11y agoSo the offense is, essentially, not arranging your affairs in a way so as to leave them open to easy scrutiny by the state. With decades of precedent allowing such laws how can strong cryptography possibly be permissible?
- maxerickson 11y agoNo, the essence of the offense is to be aware of a certain type of scrutiny and arrange your affairs specifically to avoid it.
- Zigurd 11y agoActually, some people here will argue that, in fact, the state HAS an inherent power to inspect anything at all. Math and physics be damned.
- maxerickson 11y agoI don't understand why that is an actually. The financial reporting regulations surrounding structuring are pretty specific, it really isn't the sort of thing you would use as a salvo in a war to inspect everything.
- Zigurd 11y agoNo, it isn't. But some people think the Hobbesian PoV means outlawing strong encryption is exactly what the government should do.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hamburglar 11y agoI enjoy contemplating the nuts and bolts of these laws with respect to what exactly would be allowed and what would not. For example, if I were to withdraw $15k every friday and re-deposit it every monday under the guise that I want it available for gambling over the weekend, that would raise a flag, but it's easily explainable. Would it be considered "structuring" if I did this for a while just to establish a pattern, or is it only structuring if you're trying to avoid triggering a report? If the $15k occasionally didn't show up on monday, would I then need to come up with another explanation (e.g. "I lost")? Would it fly if I were actually paying this to a friend by way of intentionally losing to him in a private card room?
- johngalt 11y agoStructuring is withdrawing cash in under 10k increments to avoid the automatic reports that occur over 10k. You wouldn't be in trouble for structuring for withdrawing 15k every week, because you would trigger a CTR every week. More accurately twice a week if you re-deposited the cash. There is nothing inherently illegal in generating CTRs, or withdrawing cash over $10k. You overestimate the amount of attention paid to CTRs. There are people and cash heavy businesses that trigger CTRs all the time. The reporting requirement is a fixed dollar amount that hasn't been adjusted since 1970. From a law enforcement standpoint CTRs are spam. The way to generate attention is by trying to avoid CTRs or the equivalent rules for cashiers checks and money orders (MIL). That will get you a SAR. Those might get investigated if you generate a few of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
- hamburglar 11y agoActually, based on reading that wikipedia article and the related one on "structuring", it's not clear to me that the scenario I described couldn't be argued to be structuring. The relevant quote is that you may not structure transactions "for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section," and my proposed scheme is designed not to avoid the CTR but rather the Suspicious Activity Report. So I think it's arguable that they could nail me for structuring.
- ccvannorman 11y agoI'm surprised no one has mentioned Bitcoin yet -- which like him or not, would have made this man's life much easier and more private.
- mirimir 11y agoI'm not sure how using Bitcoins would have helped. He could have easily purchased Bitcoins. But using them to anonymously pay his blackmailer(s) would have been nontrivial. Even if he had known how, or had advice from someone who did, I suspect that he'd have been pushing the limits of most mixing services. Also, the US classifies Bitcoins as capital investments. And so he would have had to report gains and losses in his income tax returns.
- ccvannorman 11y agotrue, but the 10k withdrawal would have been a non-issue.
- mirimir 11y agoI don't think so. Consider that I want to discreetly give someone $80K. If I withdraw $80K, the bank must report that. But if I withdraw 10x $8K, I'm arguably structuring to avoid reporting. So let's say that I want to buy $80K of Bitcoins. If I do that in one $80K transfer, the bank must report that. And with 10x $8K, I'm still structuring. And either way, in that year's tax return, I'll need to report capital gains and losses on the $80K of Bitcoins.
- shakethemonkey 11y agoYou wouldn't have to report capital gains unless you had sold the asset. But transferring the asset to your blackmailer, perhaps you might have to pay gift tax, unless you filed a 1099. [1] [1] http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...
- kfcm 11y agoLet's examine this law via the perspective of speed limits. In the US, most interstate highway systems have a speed limit of 70 miles/hour (around 112-113 km/hour). If you go over 70 mph and run into a police officer having a bad day, you'll get a ticket. Say you're on a particular stretch of interstate which is populated by officers with a reputation of consistently coming after drivers traveling even 1 mph over the limit (eg 71 mph). So, to err on the side of caution, you limit your driving to between 65 and 69 mph. You're driving along at 65-69 mph thinking all is well in the world, when the flashing lights appear behind you. You pull over, the officer comes up, and The Question comes out: "Is there a problem officer?" The officer looks you over and asks "Do you know how fast you were going?" You get a puzzled look on your face. "Well, I couldn't have been speeding. I know you guys are pretty strict about speeding around here, so I set the cruise control right at 67 mph." "So you know that speeding around here will get you a ticket, and you intentionally kept your speed below the speed limit?" "Yes sir." "Well, I'll need you to step out of the car please." "Um sure, but why?" "We have an anti-evasion law around here which makes it illegal for you to knowingly and intentionally go below the speed limit in order to avoid the possibility of going over and getting a ticket. The penalty is 30 days in jail vs the $100 speeding ticket. Since you admitted to intentionally going under the speed limit, I'm placing you under arrest." Insanity, I tell you.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe problem with your analogy is that the reporting requirements are not analogous to a speed limit. The intent of a speed limit is to increase safety by, uh, limiting speeds. The intent of the financial reporting laws is to limit money laundering by tracking the movement of large amounts of cash (and other negotiable instruments). So back to the analogy, going below the speed limit is a way of following the rules. Making transactions below the reporting limit in order to avoid the reporting is not a way of following the rules (it's an explicit attempt to avoid them). I guess you might be able to find a bank that would help you report transactions that are below the $10,000 limit (which would be an act that is more analogous to staying below the speed limit).
- obstinate 11y agoThe metaphor is not apt. There would be nothing wrong with him withdrawing $32,000, nor with him withdrawing $8,000. The crime was withdrawing $32,000 while evading the reporting requirements. It's not remotely the same as staying under a speed limit.
- ghshephard 11y agoThis situation itself is pretty straightforward, Hastert was clearly structuring, and, odds are, the person he sent the money to didn't pay taxes on the money he got from Hastert, which itself is a crime, and finally, he lied about it to the FBI, also a crime. So, three clear crimes here, one of which committed by a third party. So many things in life are "grey" - this one is pretty straightforward, and Hastert would have known that what he was doing was wrong. The news coming out today strongly suggests that he had a good incentive to commit these crimes to hide evidence of even greater wrongdoing.
- adevine 11y agoHmm, how is blackmail money classified? Gifts are not taxable by the recipient, but if you're being blackmailed, it hardly sounds like you're making a gift. Similarly, insurance money that "makes you whole" is not taxed, and in this case the money kind of sounded like restitution for abuse. I'm genuinely curious how this money would be treated by the IRS.
- jahmed 11y agoPayment in exchange for silence? Ordinary income maybe?
- ghshephard 11y agoMoney from blackmail, otherwise known as extortion, is most certainly taxable by the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Federal-Statutes---Money-Laundering http://www.irs.gov/uac/Federal-Statutes---Money-Laundering
- jrs235 11y agoIf the law was [automatically] adjusted with/for inflation, the original $10,000 limit would be $60,000 today.
- brewdad 11y agoMy biggest gripe with this law has to do with the fact that the limit hasn't changed in at least 22 years. I remember learning about this law when I worked as a bank teller one summer. $10K isn't what it used to be.
- gregpilling 11y agoThe "Know Your Customer" rules actually encourage reporting of transactions in the $2500 dollar range, which is even less. Source: drinking buddy who was VP of local bank and handled regulatory compliance
- perfTerm 11y agoYea that's nothing. Probably wouldn't even get you a pound of weed.
- DaveWalk 11y agoIt is kind of ridiculous. Per the article: >$10,000 today is equivalent to just $1,640 in 1970 dollars
- ksherlock 11y agoThis strikes me as a congressional case of the XY problem (http://mywiki.wooledge.org/XyProblem http://mywiki.wooledge.org/XyProblem) Somewhere, long ago, people were committing crimes involving large amounts of money, but law enforcement couldn't stop it. So they instituted financial reporting requirements for banks, to help identify crooks. But people can easily structure their transactions to avoid the reporting requirements. So now you make it a crime to do that. Regardless of whether there was an underlying crime in the first place. Oh, and then when the FBI investigates, you can commit a third crime (lying to the FBI) without having committed the first crime or second crime.
- nzealand 11y agoThe police can lie to you. Yet you can not lie to the police. You can refuse to talk to them however.
- meddlepal 11y agoYes you can and in the process you piss off the prosecutor who for all intent and purpose might as well be the police. Now you actively have the law working against you
- MCRed 11y agoThat's a charitable view of it. A less charitable view is that this is the early stages of currency controls. If we simply limited people from moving money around, like they did in the USSR or Warsaw Pact countries, and are currently doing in countries like Venezuela and Argentina, then people would know the jig is up and the dollar would crash. Here they are using the pretext of "fighting crime" to violate our rights (demanding information without a warrant violates the 4th and every instance of it is illegal under USC 18-242).... with the long term effect that regular people start to internalize the idea that you can't just take your money out of a bank, and trying to do it slowly is "structuring" and a crime. Structuring is the very definition of a thought crime.. and people have internalized it already!
- mikerichards 11y agoThat's what you get when you elect socialists, statists. They will decided what you can do with your own money. Why does any government asshole get to decide how, what, how much you withdrawl from your own money. You leftists better fucking wake up. You are the cause of this.
- gizi 11y agoImagine you have a series S=[[datetime1,amount1], [datetime2,amount], ..., [datetimek,amountk]] of withdrawals in which the amounts are lower than 10 000 dollars. From there, it should be possible to define the predicate function isCrime(S)=yes/no for any such S. The way in which they wrote their so-called law, however, makes it obviously impossible to implement such isCrime() predicate function unambiguously. In other words, what we can learn from this, is that there exists a set of people who are pretentious enough that they insist that they can write laws, but who are obviously too stupid to do that properly. They are also dangerous because these people use violence in order to impose their stupidity onto others.
- pjc50 11y agoThe UK is currently having great difficulty trying to ban "legal highs", which is obviously impossible to define.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoGiven the ample evidence that the current UK government don't care about tricky technicalities like human rights or cutting some slack to law abiding people and not harassing them I doubt they'll have any trouble sorting this issue out.
- lmm 11y agoOr, criminality is a function of intent? Like it always has been for almost every law?
- golemotron 11y agoThis problem should be tackled at the root. The reporting law (report transactions >10K is antiquated). The federal government can set up other ways of finding "interesting" transaction patterns that have nothing to do with a specific threshold that continually lowers in real value due to inflation. Drop the 10K reporting requirement and there is no need a structuring law except as a way to "get" people that they can not "get" in another way.
- jliptzin 11y agoI run a business and regularly withdraw > $10k per month as salary. The bank reports these routine transactions to the government every month? And if I decide in the future that things aren't going so well and need to cut my pay down to $9k or so, I might get charged with structuring, despite the fact that I am not using the money in any illegal way?