At 03:29 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian Davis wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Be especially carefully of structuring a $10,000+ transaction into smaller transactions in an attempt to circumvent the reporting requirements. Doing so ("structuring a transaction") is a felony.
I was involved in reviewing a matter for possible prosecution in my former life. Guy wins big football pool (season long) -- total of $27,000. He calls an *leaves a message* that he wants 3 $9,000 checks. He gets them, goes to branch 1 of bank x and cashes one. Then to branch 2 and cashes another. Then back to branch 1 for the third.
The bank, as required, filed a Report of Suspcious Transaction. Fortunately for him, the IRS-CID agents jumped the gun and alerted him to the investigation (by interviewing him) before he filed his taxes for that year. He then knew enough to report the income and pay the taxes.
We settled the matter by having the money forfeited and having a civil monetary penalty assessment against him under the Bank Secrecy Act (the first such penalty against an individual ever). He got credit on the civil assessment for the money forfeited, so all he lost was his $27,000 in winnings.
Had he been better at it, he never would've been caught, IMNSHO.
Actually, this kind of stunt fully justifies whatever level of lethal punishment that the public will one day direct at these thugs. Look at what you just said, paraphrased by me: "Man wins $27,000. He will eventually be required to report and pay taxes on the amount, but not quite yet. Stupid I/R/S people alert him BEFORE he files his taxes. He reports the payment, as is ostensibly legally required. He paid the taxes owed. Period." THEN you said, "we settled the matter." Huh? What, exactly, was there to "settle"? Remember, you just said that the stupid I/R/S agents ALERTED him, right? Well, if they do stupid things they ought to be punished for them, right?!? One of the consequences of showing your hand early is that any potential opponent can adjust his behavior to AVOID getting caught doing something wrong. Since this man's obligations were in the future, he was alerted to fulfill them. (this is quite analogous to cops driving around in marked cars. Presumably, they will occasionally be seen by a person planning a crime, who may be deterred from his intent temporarily or permanently.) Don't try to claim that the act of receiving the money in portions evidenced intent to commit a crime, because reporting and paying the taxes made that possibility moot. At best, you might claim that had he COULD HAVE carried it through to illegality, analogous to the possibility that if a person picks up an object in a store, he MIGHT head for the exit without paying, or go to the cash register to pay. Store detectives, wisely, know that they must wait for a shoplifter to leave the store BEFORE closing in. I say again: It is PRECISELY this kind of outrageous behavior that results in revolutions, assassinations, and other incidents. The hostage-taking currently going on in Peru has captured Peruvian government officials who heretofore, felt safe abusing THEIR citizenry the same way you once felt safe abusing yours. Tell me, would you have felt abused if during your previous employment you'd been taken hostage similarly? Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com