Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
At 09:35 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote:
Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean "report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of $10,000.
Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of >the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't >evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your >part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's >mere _desires_ criminal.)
Please, Jim, *go read the law*. Do it now, before you even think about replying to this message, else you'll say something else stupid and irrelevant. Look, I'll even give you the complete, specific URL for the section of the U.S. Code in question; all you have to do is cut-and-paste it into your favorite Web browser: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5324.html See in clause (1) where it says, "cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a)"? See the words "attempt to cause"? Now go back to EBD's original post. See where he said "Report of Suspicious Transaction"? See the errors in your argument above? Good. Your homework assignment is to go read _Ratzlaf v. US_, 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655, and summarize for the list. --bal
Fuck Christmas... "Brian A. LaMacchia" <bal@martigny.ai.mit.edu> writes:
See in clause (1) where it says, "cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a)"? See the words "attempt to cause"? Now go back to EBD's original post. See where he said "Report of Suspicious Transaction"? See the errors in your argument above? Good.
Here's a somewhat related post I saw on alt.revenge: ]From: dastuart@mail.entrsft.com ]Newsgroups: alt.revenge ]Subject: Re: Car salesmen and dealerships ]Message-ID: <N.122496.022320.78@entrsft.com> ]Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 07:23:20 GMT ... ] I remember once, my ex had a problem with a furniture store in ]Fayetteville, NC as they were rude to her on the phone and hung up, she called ]the manager to complain and he was just as rude. ] ] Wellllllllll.... that didn't set too well with her so she (& I) went down ]the next day to make her monthly payment. She was so upset, that she decided to ]pay the last three payments and get rid of them permanently. The previous day ]she withdrew the money from the bank, @ $120.00 ($40.00 per payment). ] ] We walked in the store that FRIDAY at 5:15 (they close at 5:30) she went ]ahead of me to the back of the store where they receive pymnts and announced ]that she was totally pi**ed with the attitude of the employees (explained what ]had happened) and that she wanted to pay them off and would not do business ]with them anymore. She asked for and got the finally pay off as I walked ]towards her and placed the money on the counter. ] ] As I did..... (did I mention that the $120.00 was in UNROLLED PENNIES ?) ]all hell broke lose, the cashier said that they had to be rolled. Rhonda told ]her that she would not and as a matter of fact she spent an hour unrolling ]them. (it took that long because as we did, we replaced the "wheaties" with ]regular pennies) and asked her if she was refusing payment. ] ] She called the manager on the phone and came back smugly and said , no we ]are not refusing payment, we are refusing the form of payment, Rhonda said, ]regardless of the 'form' it is US currency and legal. Not a check which you ]have the option to accept or not. ] ] She again called the manager and he came back there. Going through this ]again with him, Rhonda said, Now I ask you one more time, regardless of the ]form of payment, this is it, will you accept it or not? If not, then I will ]consider my debt paid in full. ] ] Finally he agreed to accept it. She told him that she thought that there ]was exactly $120.00 there but wanted him to count it to make sure, because she ]didn't want to short change his company and if there was a penny extra was ]damned if they were going to get it. She went on with him for another round, ]finally he agreed, that they would count it and she could pick up her receipt ]tomorrow. ] ] Tomorrow, hell no, I come 25 miles to pay this off and I am not going home ]without a receipt. The bottom line is that they wanted to get home, and didn't ]want to mess with this. ] ] She stated that her debt was considered "PAID IN FULL" and that if they ]wanted to sue her that they could take her to small claims court, and if they ]did, she would appeal the decision if it were not in her favor to a higher ]court (which in NC is Superior) and of course she wanted a trial by jury so ]that at least twelve people would hear the story about their company but not to ]try to put anything damaging in her credit file because she had a press release ]to send to her paper and the one in Fayetteville and would sue them for ]defamation of character (and a few other things). ] ] We walked out of the store and went home and had to roll the pennies. The ]only thing that we heard from them was a flier in the mail @ 2 weeks later when ]they were having a preferred customer sale. (obviously the fliers were sent out ]before they took our name off of their mailing list. ] ]stuart ] I wonder if something in U.S.C. say that if you try to pull this trick on a U.S.G. agency, you're guilty of "unlawful structuring" or some such shit. Personally, Jim Bell is an asshole, but he's right about many things. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Brian A. LaMacchia writes:
At 09:35 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of >the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't >evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your >part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's >mere _desires_ criminal.)
Please, Jim, *go read the law*. Do it now, before you even think about replying to this message, else you'll say something else stupid and irrelevant. Look, I'll even give you the complete, specific URL for the section of the U.S. Code in question; all you have to do is cut-and-paste it into your favorite Web browser:
It appears that Jim's 100% wrong- they omit the 'Suspicious Transaction' report in the list of reports that the gambler was busted for trying to avoid: Section 5324: (a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions. - No person shall for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a), section 5325, or the regulations issued thereunder or section 5325 or regulations prescribed under such section 5325 (FOOTNOTE 1) with respect to such transaction - (FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. See 1992 Amendment note below. (1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a), section 5325, or the regulations issued thereunder or section 5325 or regulations prescribed under such section 5325; (FOOTNOTE 1) (2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under section 5313(a), section 5325, or the regulations issued thereunder or section 5325 or regulations prescribed under such section 5325 (FOOTNOTE 1) that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions. Section 5313 is the 'normal' reporting section, Section 5318(g) is "suspicious" transactions (note that it wasn't listed in 5324 above): (g) Reporting of Suspicious Transactions. - (1) In general. - The Secretary may require any financial institution, and any director, officer, employee, or agent of any financial institution, to report any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation. (2) Notification prohibited. - A financial institution, and a director, officer, employee, or agent of any financial institution, who voluntarily reports a suspicious transaction, or that reports a suspicious transaction pursuant to this section or any other authority, may not notify any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported. 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. -- 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
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
Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com> writes:
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.
Yes - that's what the U.S. is. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (4)
-
Brian A. LaMacchia -
Brian Davis -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Eric Murray