A champion of liberty speaks about privacy, cash smuggling
Debate last evening: http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=9635463676+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for yielding the time. I rise in strong support of this legislation today. Many of us in this Chamber have worked for a number of years to provide the law enforcement tools that we need to fight the drug trade, money launderers, and terrorists; and in the wake of September 11, the terrorist attacks, this has never been more important. And indeed, we may soon learn that the anthrax attacks are financed by the same money sources. We do not know that yet. The point is that, as has already been outlined, particularly by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), I want to commend him for stating some of the specifics of this legislation. He has been a leader, and we have [[Page H7203]] worked together on this, and whether we are talking about the bill prohibiting correspondent banking privileges for offshore shell banks and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to take special measures if a foreign country or bank is deemed to present a money laundering threat, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) went into great detail on that, and I want to associate myself with his remarks. The bill is not perfect. I am sorry that, for example, we excluded making it a crime to smuggle over $10,000 interstate. We included it for overseas, but it was not included for interstate. Nevertheless, this is an excellent bill. I would like to say to some of the nay sayers that complain about the provisions, as to whether or not they deny due process or whatever, the question has been asked are we endangering the rights and privacy of innocent Americans. The answer is no, but it does give our law enforcement officials the requirements that they need for their careful investigation. It gives our regulators and law enforcement officials what they need to get the job done. May I say that in this brave new world of terrorists, we must cripple this demonic network. Let me just have a couple of additional seconds to say that unless we have this strong provision in the bill, it would make a mockery of the legislation; and it is an absolutely essential core of anti-terrorist legislation.
The bill is not perfect. I am sorry that, for example, we excluded making it a crime to smuggle over $10,000 interstate. We included it for overseas, but it was not included for interstate. Nevertheless, this is an excellent bill.
Can someone clarify the definition, in this context, of "smuggling" ? Does this mean that $10,000 in cash can no longer be taken out of the country, or does it mean that it can no longer be taken out of the country in a secretive manner ? For as long as I have been traveling internationally, I have been required to declare all cash amounts larger than $10,000. Does this mean that previously it was not a crime to not make such a declaration, and now it is ? ----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
The bill has been in flux, and nobody has had time to read it in detail. You can scroll through it yerself: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/usa.act.final.102401.html ``(b) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Nonfinancial Trades or Businesses.--No person shall, for the purpose of evading the report requirements of section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section-- ``(1) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to fail to file a report required under section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section; [...] ``(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with 1 or more nonfinancial trades or businesses.'. [...] (1) In general.--Whoever, with the intent to evade a currency reporting requirement under section 5316, knowingly conceals more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary instruments on the person of such individual or in any conveyance, article of luggage, merchandise, or other con transport or transfer such currency or monetary instruments from a place within the United States to a place outside of the United States, or from a place outside the United States to a place within the United States, shall be guilty of a currency smuggling offense and subject to punishment pursuant to subsection (b). See also: ``(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. ``(b) As used in this section-- ``(1) the term `unlicensed money transmitting business' means a money transmitting business which affects interstate or foreign commerce in any manner or degree and-- ``(A) is operated without an appropriate money transmitting license in a State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony under State law, whether or not the defendant knew that the operation was required to be licensed or that the operation was so punishable; I wonder how this would affect various alternative currency systems: ``(2) the term `money transmitting' includes transferring funds on behalf of the public by any and all means including but not limited to transfers within this country or to locations abroad by wire, check, draft, facsimile, or courier; and -Declan On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 07:48:03PM -0700, John Kozubik wrote:
The bill is not perfect. I am sorry that, for example, we excluded making it a crime to smuggle over $10,000 interstate. We included it for overseas, but it was not included for interstate. Nevertheless, this is an excellent bill.
Can someone clarify the definition, in this context, of "smuggling" ? Does this mean that $10,000 in cash can no longer be taken out of the country, or does it mean that it can no longer be taken out of the country in a secretive manner ?
For as long as I have been traveling internationally, I have been required to declare all cash amounts larger than $10,000. Does this mean that previously it was not a crime to not make such a declaration, and now it is ?
----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
She said "interstate". That's WITHIN the US, not even outside the country. That means she wants you busted if you take cash across state lines without reporting it to the Proper Authorities, who can of course confiscate it as suspected drug money. Fortunately, that failed. You'll have to read the passed bill to find out whatever atrocious things they've added to your ability to engage in foreign commerce. At 07:48 PM 10/24/2001 -0700, John Kozubik wrote:
The bill is not perfect. I am sorry that, for example, we excluded making it a crime to smuggle over $10,000 interstate. We included it for overseas, but it was not included for interstate. Nevertheless, this is an excellent bill.
Can someone clarify the definition, in this context, of "smuggling" ? Does this mean that $10,000 in cash can no longer be taken out of the country, or does it mean that it can no longer be taken out of the country in a secretive manner ?
For as long as I have been traveling internationally, I have been required to declare all cash amounts larger than $10,000. Does this mean that previously it was not a crime to not make such a declaration, and now it is ?
----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
For as long as I have been traveling internationally, I have been required to declare all cash amounts larger than $10,000. Does this mean that previously it was not a crime to not make such a declaration, and now it is ?
I suspect that this little tidbit is there to ratify if you will a rather common procedure amonst LEOs who encounter abounts in excess of 10,000.00 in cash - immediate confiscation as "suspected drug" money. Once this happens, it is necessary for the defendant to perform the impossible feat, prove a negative assertion, in order to retrieve the confiscated cash (less all "costs for maintaining it" of course! My 5,000.00 came back as a little under 4,000.00 in just six months - and I was one of the _very_ lucky ones!
----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
John Kozubik -
measl＠mfn.org