Does anyone know what happened to the banks lovely sytem a while back when New York account holders found out that withdrawls were made twice on their accounts? What happened, did someone actually get creditted with the corresponding debits, or was this another case of an operator putting up a tape twice? -- As an aside, I remember an old wire from some years ago when $58Million was held up by the US with co-operation of European authorities. In case anyone is interested the following was the reult of the legal wranglin'. and is dated 11/93. Forget Clipper, and check out how else they're stickin it to ya. In short they 'seized' data packets, at an intermediary remailer. They have made information seizable **EGADS** -- AN PTS2096146 HL U.S. WINS MAJOR VICTORY ON WIRE SEIZURES DL ESTIMATED INFORMATION UNITS: 4.7 WORDS: 569 DD 11/01/93 SO * Money Laundering Alert (MLAL) Alert International, Inc Vol. 5, No. 2 LP When operatives of the Santacruz-Londono Cali drug cartel were arrested in June 1990 in Luxembourg, a flurry of wire transfers flew from hundreds of cartel bank accounts in Europe. Anticipating the transfers, Luxembourg authorities asked other countries to freeze the money linked to those accounts TX Of the $58 million seized worldwide, $12 million was frozen in New York City banks which had served as "intermediary banks" in the wire transfers. The role of those banks was to credit the accounts of certain correspondent Colombian banks who would then notify the beneficiaries that the funds were available. The banks were instructed by DEA agents to attach all funds on deposit in the names of Cali cartel associates, including "all related entities and individuals," and to say which transfers were destined for beneficiaries in Colombia. Two groups of Colombian clothing exporters filed claims to about $6.5 million of the seized funds saying the money was legitimately earned. They also sued the New York banks for loss of use of their funds and for violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Their suits against the banks were dismissed. After a two-month trial last year, the jury found that 18 of the 22 accounts seized were forfeitable. Now, in a case of great importance to the emerging wire transfer battles between the government and the movers of dirty money, the key federal appellate court which rules on issues arising from the New York financial center has given a resounding victory to the government. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that wire transfers that pass through intermediary banks can be seized even without "alleging facts sufficient to show that specific property is tainted." All the government must show are "facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief that (it) can demonstrate probable cause for finding the property tainted," the court said. By naming the intermediary banks and the beneficiaries, the U.S. described the property with "reasonable particularity." Moreover, the U.S. did not need a warrant for the seizures because the law permits the Justice Department to seize property when it has "probable cause to believe" it is subject to civil forfeiture, said the court. "Because the (transfers were) fungible and capable of rapid motion due to modern technology,...exigent circumstances were present here," said the court, dismissing the claimants' assertions that their constitutional rights had been violated. Likewise, there was no violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, said the court, because the claimants did not maintain "accounts" at the banks. The ECPA also provided no relief to the claimants because that law deals with the use of "devices" to "intercept" communications. Here, no devices were used and there was no interception, said the court. The court also ruled than an EFT at an intermediary bank is "clearly a seizable res (thing) under the forfeiture statutes" and that only a "nexus" and not a "substantial connection" between seized property and illegal drug activity must be shown by the government to show probable cause. The case has far-reaching implications since a majority of international wire transfers pass through intermediary banks, many of them in New York. (U.S. vs. Daccarett, Docket Nos. 92-6229 and 6259, 2nd Cir. Ct of App., September 10, 1993). ---Richard M. Lucas, CPA, is a consultant for the Philip Manuel Resource Group and a former IRS Special Agent. COPYRIGHT 1993 by Alert International, Inc. I0607 * END OF DOCUMENT.