Jim Dixon says:
Precisely what do you mean by "is used to avoid federal transfer reporting requirements" ? If you say that it is illegal, can you direct us to or quote the relevant statute?
I don't care to. It is widely known and understood that structuring transactions to avoid the $10,000 and over transaction reporting requirements is a felonly. Go and find out why on your own.
My point is that checks made out to cash are not regarded as an alternative currency.
My point is that the government doesn't give a flying fuck. They are simply trying to stop you from playing games. The law isn't like geometry -- there aren't axioms and rules for deriving one thing from another. The general principle is that they want to track all your transactions, and if you make it difficult they will either use existing law to jail you, or will produce a new law to try to do the same. Your hair spliting is really completely irrelevant. Perry
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 10:28:48 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com> Jim Dixon says: > Precisely what do you mean by "is used to avoid federal transfer reporting > requirements" ? If you say that it is illegal, can you direct us to or > quote the relevant statute? I don't care to. It is widely known and understood that structuring transactions to avoid the $10,000 and over transaction reporting requirements is a felonly. Go and find out why on your own. A good starting place would be the hermes project (aka courts.usa.federal.supreme). There is (was?) an archive at hermes.cwru.edu. There was a case decided within the last year involving a payment restructuring. At issue was whether the restructuring took place with the *intent* to avoid the reporting requirements. This is completely off-the-top-of-my-head. I'm not going to do any actual research on this. Another place would be the local branch office of your bank. I believe that the reporting requirement has been at $3000 for a number of years. Rick
...structuring transactions to avoid the $10,000 and over transaction reporting requirements is a felonly.
There was a case decided within the last year involving a payment restructuring. At issue was whether the restructuring took place with the *intent* to avoid the reporting requirements. Rick
Wall Street Journal, perhaps April '94? I think it was a high-level court ruling that essentially said it's perfectly ok to intentionally structure cash transfers to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement. That's all I recall. bf
From: binski@u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT) I think it was a high-level court ruling that essentially said it's perfectly ok to intentionally structure cash transfers to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement. That's all I recall. No. What was at issue was whether the prosecution was required and/or able to demonstrate the defendant's intent to circumvent the reporting requirements. If the defendant had admitted such an intent, there would not have been a case. Rick
From: binski@u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
I think it was a high-level court ruling that essentially said it's perfectly ok to intentionally structure cash transfers to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement. That's all I recall.
No. What was at issue was whether the prosecution was required and/or able to demonstrate the defendant's intent to circumvent the reporting requirements. If the defendant had admitted such an intent, there would not have been a case.
Of course this means that if you split e-cash transfers into small amounts to avoid any security problems that could otherwise affect the entire transfer, you are in the clear. While the logic of this decision is debatable, it should certainly be sufficient to win in court. Especially if it is built into the software as a feature. JWS
participants (4)
-
binski＠u.washington.edu -
Perry E. Metzger -
Rick Busdiecker -
solman＠MIT.EDU