On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Eric Murray wrote:
....
This is really scary to someone like me who doesn't often read laws. They're required to report "suspicious" transactions (with the definition of "suspicious" left completely wide open) and they're not allowed to tell you that you have been reported. This sounds like police-state tactics, not something that would happen in a free and open society.
It's also interesting to note that section 5313(a) similarly does not define what is to be reported. Is this defined elsewhere, or can it be changed at any time by the Secretary of the Treasury?
Reading section 5324, it sounds (to me, a layman) that there has to be some intent to evade the reporting requirements. Does this mean that prosecutors would have to prove intent? Does simply getting checks for $9000 prove intent? I sure hope not as I have recently received a couple checks for consulting work that have just happened to be slightly under ten grand.
U.S.v. Ratzlaff, the case I whose name I was trying to remember, but couldn't and which Brian LaMacchia mentioned in a post, should give you much comfort. I think Jim is going to report to the list on the case, so I won't go into any details. EBD
-- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com ericm@motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF