Dismantling Prohibition
Wednesday, Jun 3, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A group of Protestant and Jewish religious leaders called Clergy for a New Drug Policy is lobbying for marijuana legalization in Illinois and several other states…
“It’s a primary change if something is decriminalized,” said the Rev. Al Sharp, the Chicago pastor who launched the group this spring. “The goal is to change the culture of punishment in this country, which the war on drugs has contributed so thoroughly and so devastatingly to.”
Sharp considers himself just as much a policy wonk as he is a pastor. As the former head of nonprofit agencies such as Protestants for the Common Good and the Community Renewal Society, groups founded as alternatives to the religious right, he has made lobbying for public policies such as more education funding and better housing his ministry. […]
When legislators in Springfield recently approved a bill to remove criminal penalties for simple marijuana possession, replacing the threat of jail time and a criminal record with a sanction similar to a traffic ticket, Sharp and his fellow clergy claimed victory.
If the bill is signed into law, Illinois will join 17 other states in decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, a group that advocates the legal use of marijuana. Nearly half the country, including Illinois, already allows for the use of medical marijuana.
But without the support from groups on the Right, like the Illinois Policy Institute, this stuff was going nowhere.
* In related news, Ruth Marcus writes in WaPo about the Dennis Hastert indictment for attempting to evade currency reporting requirements and lying to the FBI…
The Hastert indictment raises questions even more gut-wrenching: about the proper use of the criminal law; the degree to which technical statutes should be employed to punish alleged conduct that is offensive but uncharged; and the role that celebrity and prominence should play in making prosecutorial decisions. […]
The Hastert indictment strikes me as a significantly more questionable call. If Hastert sexually abused a student when he was a teacher and wrestling coach, that conduct is repugnant; it should have been reported and prosecuted decades ago.
Now, it is too late for that. Instead, Hastert was tripped up by bank reporting requirements intended to catch drug kingpins and organized crime bosses. His alleged crime is that he structured his hush money withdrawals to avoid triggering reporting rules and then — seemingly on a single occasion — lied to FBI agents about why he was making the withdrawals. […]
Hastert did, it seems, a terrible thing. He is, or was, paying for it — literally. He shelled out $1.7 million “to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct,” the indictment says. He is at once alleged perpetrator and victim of a shake-down scheme; his alleged victim is both prey and blackmailer.
* Let’s focus on the currency issue. From the indictment…
Title 31, United States Code, Section 5313(a) and Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1010.310-313 required domestic financial institutions to prepare and file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network a Currency Transaction Report (Form 104) for any transaction or series of transactions involving currency of more than $10,000.
Federal law also makes it a crime to attempt to evade this reporting requirement. So, if you consciously don’t want to deal with that reporting hassle and instead withdraw just $9,500 from your bank account, you can actually be charged with a felony.
First of all, that’s your money in your bank account. This is so invasive.
Secondly, the law was passed in the mid 1980’s, when $10,000 was worth less than half than it is today. The law was actually passed in 1970. So, $10K then would’ve been $60,979.12 in today’s dollars. That means our current limit is a mere 16.4 percent of what it was back then.
We’re eventually going to reach a point through the magic of inflation when $10K is a normal withdrawal for anybody in the middle class. [Adding: I withdrew cash before my extended trip to New Orleans and the bank flagged it for the IRS. I couldn’t believe my bank did it because it was nowhere near $10K.]
These sorts of drug prohibition-era penalities need to be repealed. Maybe Hastert’s indictment will finally wake up Congress.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
Agree on the Hastert thing. Seems trumped up to me—his “scheme” wasn’t to cover up drug money or organized crime activity–nor to avoid the IRS.
- Blago's Luxurious Grey Mane - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:40 pm:
From the very beginning of this news, I have had the same thoughts about the “invasive” argument. $10K isn’t much these days, and it’s just another excuse for “Big Brother” snooping into people’s lives. It reminds me of how the Feds keep seizing $$$ and assets from the owners of Mom and Pop establishments that deal with significant amounts of currency in their everyday business. A huge overstep.
This pattern of leaking from law enforcement is repugnant, too. I’m still reserving judgment, though I’m not sure we’ll ever know all of the facts.
This whole Hastert enterprise by the Feds is NOT Aaron Schock and certainly not Blago — it’s more about Fardon getting to hang a trophy on the wall.
- How Ironic - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
“We’re eventually going to reach a point through the magic of inflation when $10K is a normal withdrawal for anybody in the middle class.”
…..In 2375 maybe. I’m not seeing a CASH withdrawal in/around $10,000 will ever be ‘routine’ in my lifetime.
The author raises some good points, but loses it right there.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
===We’re eventually going to reach a point through the magic of inflation when $10K is a normal withdrawal for anybody in the middle class.===
Maybe in your neighborhood, hey, God bless and everything. In mine, that’s a lot of cash. I’ve written checks from my account like this, but there are not many instances when I can think of a need to have that much cash available. And the instances I can think of are legit in the sense I’d have no problem explaining to the FBI or my banker why I needed the cash.
I agree it’s none of their business, but at some point it might be the IRS’ business, or your ex-wife’s business, etc.
And really, the story here is how Hastert became a multi-millionaire after a career in public service. Let’s get real. I have no sympathy for him that he got tripped up by an obscure and possibly outdated banking technicality.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
===In 2375 maybe===
Maybe. But I withdrew cash before my extended trip to New Orleans and the bank flagged it for the IRS. I couldn’t believe my bank did it because it was nowhere near $10K.
- Urbs In Horto - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
If you’re clean, write a check. $10K cash at once, or a series of cash withdrawals below that amount sufficient (in the bank’s judgment) to trigger a suspicious activity report, is still enough to justify a closer look, imo. And who says this law is only supposed to catch drug dealers? It’s supposed to catch people trying to cover their criminal tracks. Worked like a charm in this instance.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
===But I withdrew cash before my extended trip to New Orleans===
Next time just have your bank wire it to Harrah’s.
- Urbs In Horto - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
Change banks, Rich.
- TCB - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:52 pm:
The $10k threshold certainly needs revisited. I was recently married and deposited our wedding cash into my bank account. These gifts exceeded $10k (thanks mom!) and I was required to disclose the deposit. The bank actually balked, as if that were not a good enough disclosure…..I thought they were going to make me produce a copy of the officially marriage certificate (which we hadn’t yet recieved from the county).
$10k isn’t nearly what it used to be……they need to up that for sure.
- Hickory - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:53 pm:
Cash is the key word. In my 40+ years in business the only time large amounts of cash was mentioned was to hide something from the IRS. $10,000 is a reasonable amount when talking about cash.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:53 pm:
=== It’s supposed to catch people trying to cover their criminal tracks. Worked like a charm in this instance. ===
What crime did Hastert commit other than lying to the FBI?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
Hickory, see above comment about wedding money.
- nixit71 - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
So transactions involving currency of more than $10,000, a threshold set in the mid-80’s, was not indexed to inflation?
Sounds a lot like the progressive income tax plans proposed over the years that also do not index any of the income thresholds against inflation. Just one of the drawbacks of “hardcoding” dollar limits in legislation.
- Salty - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:55 pm:
I’m leaning toward being fine with the crime being on the books, but it should be more of a misdemeanor opposed to a felony. If you trip it up, and then the feds find other criminal activity, charge the other activity. Obviously, we can revisit whether 10k is the right amount.
- Toffee - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
This limit was either introduced or re-authorized by the Patriot Act in 2001, which Hastert helped usher through the House. It may be invasive but there is argument that these types of transactions by a former high-level public official warrant particular scrutiny. What are the transactions about? Is a foreign government party to the blackmail? Are state secrets involved? Etc. Not sure this is a just result but a compounding error was lying to the Feds.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
===Just one of the drawbacks of “hardcoding” dollar limits in legislation. ===
Yeah, and MJM’s millionaire’s tax would put a dollar amount in the Constitution. Ridiculous.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
===deposited our wedding cash into my bank account. These gifts exceeded $10k (thanks mom!) and I was required to disclose the deposit===
I’ve never heard of a requirement related to deposits, but your mom gave you $10K in cash? Nice.
Reminds me of when Henry and Karen Hill got married…
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:59 pm:
Ok no sympathy for Hastert however these charges are a crock. He took his money out money he had presumably paid taxes on. His crime was not withdrawing it in large enough sums that big brother gets a phone call. Then he didn’t tell big brother what it was for or told them conflicting info. So two sets of bull charges and the feds starleaking like a sieve. Leaks that have no actual bearing on the charges. (Note why he took the cash out doesn’t change the charge.) All of which makes the mans name mud. So if he chooses to fight the b.s. charges what are his chances of a fair jury pool? Seems like a disgusting way to get a plea.
The federal government through it’s agents just used character assasination to attack a man whose crime is withdrawing his perfectly legal property from a bank.
Now if he can be charged with another crime bring it and prosecute to the fullest.
- SAP - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 2:59 pm:
I am troubled about the way they caught Hastert, but I’m glad they did.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
Oh and this reporting will never go away. If we legalized alldrugs they would just slap the “terror” tag on.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
Totally disagree on the Hastert thing. First off, this isn’t a particularly obscure rule. I’ve known about it for decades. Second, he took $50,000 in cash out 15 different times and was repeatedly warned about it by his bank. Finally he structured his transactions more than 100 time and lied about it in an idiotic way.
Lessons to take from this:
1) Don’t talk to the Feds and certainly don’t lie to them if you have something to cover up.
2) It’s called a cashier’s check. If he had issued multiple cashier’s checks this wouldn’t have been an issue.
3) It’s called a wire transfer. If he had done wire transfers this wouldn’t be an issue.
Yes, it’s his money that he’s using to compensate his victim for his past crimes. But there are laws and the former Speaker of the US House was warned about those laws (which he strengthened btw as Speaker). Hastert committed the crime of gross stupidity to cover up the alleged crimes of abusing a child. I have no sympathy.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:05 pm:
===First off, this isn’t a particularly obscure rule===
It is to most people I’ve talked to about it. It’s an insane rule. That’s my money. I should be able to withdraw my money how I see fit.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:05 pm:
Under the excessively complex Dodd Frank legislation, a person who has a savings account can only make six (6) electronic transfers per month. That is not a mistype.
I have to admit that when I read the “your money in your account” line I kept thinking of the old man in the J.D. Wentworth commercial.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:05 pm:
===I’ve never heard of a requirement related to deposits===
It goes both ways. In and out.
- Just askin' - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:08 pm:
The Atlantic had an interesting article on the Hastert indictment.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/when-evading-government-spying-is-a-crime/394640/
- Urbs In Horto - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:08 pm:
“What crime did Hastert commit other than lying to the FBI?” Touche, Rich — a more than fair point. He (apparently) allegedly committed now time-barred sex offenses. But at the point a drug dealer commits this sort of violation, he, too, has yet to be convicted of the crime he’s covering up. Perhaps the time-bar makes this different, technically and as a matter of abstract principle. But I’m still left with the feeling that the way this is playing out (again, applying the assumption above) is not some sort of egregious miscarriage of justice.
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
I’d hope there would be support from those on the right in Illinois on decriminalizing marijuana. There certainly is in other states and at the national level.
What’s not to like, from tneir perspective? Less “Nanny State,” less expense chasing silly crimes, more resources for real crime prevention and incarceration.
And if we ever get smart and legalize, a bundle to be made in the private sector, especially when the inevitable national legalization comes.
I think marijuana now is like gay marriage, where public opinion is changing rapidly and is way ahead of fhe politicians.
What are we supposed to be scared of, anyway? Willie Nelson?
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
47, Deposit or Withdrawal. It gets reported. Write a check for (even as a deposit) on a car, it gets reported. Be the kid making a deposit for the store you work at in the mall $10K in checks or cash…it gets reported.
Truthfully, the technology with regard to algorithms flags more than anyone here would ever be comfortable with. They’ve used this to bust child care providers, landscapers, handymen, you name it.
It’s worked on everyone except for who it was meant to work on. (not dudes going to New Orleans)
- Austin Blvd - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:11 pm:
Re Hastert:
What is truly repugnant is that the Feds think they need to “leak” information that has zero relevancy to the actual crime — unless they are truly going to convict him on the earlier activity.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:14 pm:
===is not some sort of egregious miscarriage of justice. ===
It’s kinda like street justice. I’m not actually opposed to ruining this guy, but I don’t particularly care for how it’s being done.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:16 pm:
===Change banks, Rich. ===
Yeah. That wouldn’t set off any alarms at all, would it?
Sheesh.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:16 pm:
===It goes both ways. In and out.===
Thanks. I should have looked that up before I posted instead of after. Mea culpa.
But c’mon Rich, nothing says you can’t withdraw (or deposit) as much of your own cash as you want. The law just requires banks to report it to the IRS.
In the Hastert case, it sure looks like the feds used the bank reporting to wonder what he was doing with all that cash. I bet it didn’t take them long to find out who was receiving it. From there, one can guess that Individual A was threatened with some serious jail time for tax evasion and presto: he spilled the beans about Hastert’s secret. Again, so I’m guessing. The courts will sort it all out eventually.
I really don’t have a problem with this law or that it led to Hastert’s current predicament.
- Urbs In Horto - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:23 pm:
“Change banks, Rich.”
(1) Tongue in cheek.
(2) But seriously, folks, if your bank is reporting a single sub-$10K withdrawal — something the law manifestly does not require — and it bothers you, vote with your feet! You don’t have to explain why. Just take your business elsewhere.
- Majority of Me - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:27 pm:
When I worked for a financial institution, we were required to log any cash transaction over $3,000. If it reached the $10,000 threshold, the institution was mandated to report to the feds. At the time we were instructed this was a new requirement for our institution due to the US Patriot Act.
- Arizona Bob - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:27 pm:
If they have to make a large cash transaction report a felony, then either the law enforcement agencies are grossly incompetent in their police work or just plain lazy. Neither is a good excuse for government stealing our freedom and liberty. I guess you could say the same about those RICO statutes, and being “guilty until proven innocent” in litigation with the IRS.
- TCB - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:28 pm:
=Reminds me of when Henry and Karen Hill got married…=
Atleast it wasn’t like the scene in Donnie Brasco when Lefty gives Donnie a stack bills for Christmas then within seconds “borrows” it back from him.
- walker - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:28 pm:
All done my computer algorithm, and automatically transmitted to gov computers as well. And it is done for patterns of cash transactions, even when each is below 10K. That’s how they flagged Hastert, IMO. The banks are not even allowed to report to you how they do select what to report, with the argument that they don’t want the evildoers to know the system.
This cancer has spread just like the NSA overreach with telephone records.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:30 pm:
He lied about how he was spending his own money to Big Daddy. He got indicted for it.
That should scare everyone.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:34 pm:
47th
A question if Hastert was a cumpulsive gambler and the cash was going to different casinos and he was hiding it for professional reasons. Would you feel the same?
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:34 pm:
===That should scare everyone.===
He was a high school teacher and a coach and may have sexually abused a student. That should scare everyone too.
- a drop in - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:36 pm:
47th: Over 14k to an individual triggers a gift tax that supposed to be paid by the donor. Tax evasion will always get checked out.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:37 pm:
===Over 14k to an individual triggers a gift tax===
He wasn’t charged with that.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:39 pm:
===if Hastert was a cumpulsive gambler and the cash was going to different casinos ===
They busted Chris Kelly for that, only it was to a bookie, not to casinos. The bookie was never charged, btw.
- Give It Time - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:43 pm:
Sooner rather than later, the IPI and other conservative groups are going to support marijuana legalization. The scale is tipping fast, just as it did with gay rights. The IPI cares about economic issues, not social ones, and so they’ll endorse it. Legalization simply makes too much sense, both from an economic and social perspective, for conservatives to dig in their heels, especially given what’s happening with public opinion.
As for money issues, more than once I’ve had a credit card frozen unbeknownst to me because the bank deemed a transaction suspicious. The last time it happened, several years back, I was on the road and using my card to buy gas. Suddenly, it stopped working. Why? The bank saw that I was buying gas and meals away from home and decided my card must have been stolen. Incredible. That’s why you carry plastic when you’re away from home, so you don’t have to carry cash.
I don’t have a problem, really, with flagging cash transactions even as low as $5,000. It’s not like they’re not already keeping a close eye. If you win $1,000 playing slots at a casino, the IRS gets notified.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:46 pm:
Rich
Which is precisely my point. Hastert appears to be a detestable scum bag. However that doesn’t mean the tactics employed by the feds are justified. If we divorce the detestable act it’s easier to see how detestable the feds have been.
- MootPointsAbound - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:51 pm:
The value of $10K is a moot point. Hastert had agreed to pay over $3M. He would have still gotten caught. His dirty little secret would still be outted.
- Boatcaptain - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:52 pm:
Agree with you Rich, my father worked in a bank for 35 years. Most people have no idea what the rules are as far as transferring cash. It is time to change the laws.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:54 pm:
Don’t banks also monitor how often you are withdrawing funds? I seem to remember a friend being denied access to their savings account because of to many withdraws in a 30 day timeframe.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:56 pm:
I think Rich makes a pretty good point about the $10K limit needing to be revisited.
I’m a bit less convinced that this was a way to charge Hastert with a crime that is barred by the statute of limitations.
From everything I’ve seen, the feds were following suspicious withdrawals of large sums from his accounts, not investigating potential sexual improprieties. Given that we are talking about someone who presumably had a high level security clearance (at some point if not currently) and was privy to a lot of sensitive government information, it’s not really that crazy to start following a multi-million dollar cash trail.
And then Hastert lied to the FBI. Once you lie, that’s the ball game.
It’s his misfortune (or, more accurately, his own actions) that the trail led directly to a rather ugly crime for which he cannot be prosecuted. But I honestly think he would still be indicted for the cash withdrawals even if they were used for a different, legal reason if he had lied about them to the FBI.
- Chicago Guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 3:57 pm:
It would be interesting to know if the feds have standard guidelines for when to prosecute for these types of offenses. For instance, if an average joe is withdrawing money on a regular basis over the limit to give to a mistress and lies to the FBI about it, would they prosecute?
I have less sympathy of Hastert because I think his prior position in government leaves him subject to closer scrutiny. The withdrawals could have been related to blackmail related to issues of national security and corruption. He owed the FBI an honest answer. And he should have known the risk of lying based on what happened to Henry Cisneros.
One last comment is we still don’t know much about what actually took place. I don’t think the Wa-Po writer should be calling his victim a blackmailer. But on the flipside, we shouldn’t assume the worst about Hastert when we don’t know about anything about the person’s age, relationship with Hastert, the nature of the activity, or the impact on the person’s life.
- Federalist - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:02 pm:
Federal law also makes it a crime to attempt to evade this reporting requirement. So, if you consciously don’t want to deal with that reporting hassle and instead withdraw just $9,500 from your bank account, you can actually be charged with a felony.
Classic government overreach and too often very selectively applied. Yes, I know about the $10K rule and I think most intelligent people do but if you withdraw less than that ( I don’t know how much less) then that is a felony?
Ridiculous, make the amount known. This is a scam s that the government can target who they want to , when they want to. And no, I could care less about Hastert.
- Tommydanger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:04 pm:
==What crime did Hastert commit other than lying to the FBI?==
Is it a crime only if it is charged? Is it a crime only if its within the SOL?
A woman can be sexually assaulted and absent a DNA sample collected, cannot have the offender arrested 20 years later. Was a crime committed against her?
I don’t think the fact that the SOL has run makes Hastert’s presumed actions involving a minor any less a crime. It just means that legally that he got away with it, or if you prefer, cannot be charged with it.
- Federalist - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:05 pm:
As to the religious groups advocating changes in pot laws.
I thought liberals were appalled when religion and politics were mixed. And this is religion and politics when they do not come out solely as individuals but as members of the religious community.
Reality is that both sides use religion when it suits their purpose so I don’t want to hear anybody scream about it when they do- unless of course they truly want all the religious groups to stay out of politics.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:15 pm:
Wouldn’t defend anyone who did what Hastert was accused of. Since he paid, which we only know because he lied to the Feds about his own money, it’s tough not to conclude some admission of guilt.
In a manner, he and Mr. X agreed to a defacto civil settlement. The victim agreeing in this case that $3.5M would be enough to cover the emotional damage, etc. This patient person (who indeed was victimized) waited until his abuser had more to go after- that’s even kind of interesting.
Hastert should’ve enlisted a law firm to handle the agreement with some discretion for both parties and transfer all the money from him to a firm. That would have been a lot easier to explain- legal fees. Not as alarming. The firm could have parceled the money to the individual. It almost seems as if a fee was being saved by doing it privately. It’s impossible for me to believe that only two people really knew about this.
How does the suddenly new millionaire explain his fortune. Very weird.
- too obvious - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:17 pm:
Some people are completely missing the boat. No one is saying you can’t do what you want with your own money in the bank. But certain activity simply requires that a report gets filed.
No doubt the G saw the reports and based on the considerable activity had a reasonable fear that a guy who for years was 2nd in line to POTUS maybe was being ahaken-down. And given the national secrets he knows, that’s a legitimate concern.
So they go to him and he lies. Big mistake.
If a currency reporting law originally intended to thwart mobsters and drug dealers, happens to have snared a despicable student predator instead, then I say it’s a great day for law enforcement and U.S. law. Well done!
And actually you’re wrong Rich. Changing times and more technology means that average people are relying on currency a lot less as time goes on. It’s science.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:21 pm:
===Is it a crime only if it is charged?===
It’s a crime if one is convicted.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:24 pm:
===No one is saying you can’t do what you want with your own money in the bank. But certain activity simply requires that a report gets filed.===
lol
And if I don’t want a report filed, for whatever reason, I’m in danger of being charged with a felony for withdrawing my own money out of my own account.
Talk to the hand.
- Tommydanger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:26 pm:
===It’s a crime if one is convicted.===
You can’t have it both ways Rich. You asked what crime has Hastert committed besides lying to the FBI? Well, according to your definition above, he hasn’t committed that crime either.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:28 pm:
===he hasn’t committed that crime either. ===
True.
What criminal violation(s) has he been charged with?
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:31 pm:
Too obvious
It isn’t even as Rich points out you don’t want a report filed.If you have a series of suspicious withdrawels/deposits your assumed to be structuring. Then whether your structring or not is up to the feds and how “reasonable” they find your explanation. So if they decide you weren’tout going to New Orleans you get to spend more of your money to hire a lawyer to justify that you withdrew/deposited your own money from your own account.
- Tommydanger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:32 pm:
==What criminal violation(s) has he been charged with?==
Only the ones charged in the indictment.
As to what crimes has he committed, I’ll stand on my previous answer.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:33 pm:
Rich, it seems like you have a lot of issues with this law! Just some food for thought:
=== What crime did Hastert commit other than lying to the FBI? ===
Its not necessarily about Hastert. Think about the recipient of the cash. That was a lot of cash that may not have been reported to the IRS. Structuring makes it a heck of a lot easier to evade taxes - which is problematic.
=== It is to most people I’ve talked to about it. It’s an insane rule. That’s my money. I should be able to withdraw my money how I see fit. ===
It may have been your money in the example you used, but that is not always the case. I have seen financial fraudsters that swindle millions of dollars from investors use structuring as a way to avoid having their fraud detected by regulators and criminal authorities. Without this law, it makes it significantly more difficult to detect criminal activity.
=== [Adding: I withdrew cash before my extended trip to New Orleans and the bank flagged it for the IRS. I couldn’t believe my bank did it because it was nowhere near $10K.]===
CTR Requirements aren’t limited to single transactions, but can include multiple transactions that aggregate to be over $10,000 in a day. In certain circumstances, this can include separate bank accounts. Obviously I don’t know what triggered the report in this instance, but maybe it was related to other nonrelated transactions.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:36 pm:
===Think about the recipient of the cash.===
The recipient hasn’t been charged with anything.
===financial fraudsters that swindle millions of dollars from investors use structuring===
You’re telling me you have to set this at $10K to bust millionaires? C’mon. Put it back up to 1970 levels at least.
===this can include separate bank accounts===
I have one bank account.
- Chicago Guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:37 pm:
While I share the concerns about the fair enforcement of this law and the $10,000 cap, I don’t feel sorry for Hastert. The level of cash activity by a former Speaker of the House and current lobbyist raises a lot of concerns. As a lobbyist, he could have been bribing people with the cash. He was no average Joe.
Likewise he should be familiar with what happened to Scooter Libby, Elliot Spitzer and Henry Cisneros. You don’t lie to the FBI.
- gg - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:41 pm:
The G is digging in the dirt.
Dirty laundry.
Pie in the face of the big old man.
Let the man die in peace.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:44 pm:
=== I don’t feel sorry for Hastert===
Me neither.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:45 pm:
A guy mentions above that this law (which I strongly oppose) also applies to checks. I didn’t think that was the case and wondered if anyone else has a similar opinion.
Give it Time, I had the same problem with a credit card a few years back. (I had traveled all the way to Indy!) When they couldn’t assure me it wouldn’t happen again, I cut up the card and mailed it back.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:48 pm:
First he lied to Big Daddy about what he was doing with his own money.
Then, in an attempt to “legally” circumvent having to lie to Big Daddy again, Big Daddy moved the goal posts back and lowered the standard to punish him for the lie.
Then Big Daddy used the fruit from the poison tree to ask questions on the other side. One lie leads to a crime, for which the atonement (not legally pursue-able decades later) was settled among the two parties.
Not debatable: he got nailed for accessing his own money. He lied. Victim or not; he was still eligible to be charged with a crime. Just not the terrible one.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:50 pm:
=== You’re telling me you have to set this at $10K to bust millionaires? C’mon. Put it back up to 1970 levels at least. ===
They are not millionaires. Just scam artists that know how to steal the hard earned money of others. And you would be surprised how difficult it is to detect this type of illegal behavior if it wasn’t for the CTR requirements. I get your point about raising the threshold level, but it doesn’t mean that the requirements don’t serve a legitimate purpose.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:50 pm:
Artie, the University of Illinois had to report the transactions on checks I sent to them for tuition. All well over $10K unfortunately. lol.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:51 pm:
Artie, do you think Hastert was wiring cash to this dude? A transfer is a transfer my friend.
- nixit71 - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:58 pm:
==The law was actually passed in 1970. So, $10K then would’ve been $60,979.12 in today’s dollars. That means our current limit is a mere 16.4 percent of what it was back then.==
So Madigan’s millionaire’s tax in 1970 would amount to $6M in today’s dollars if indexed against inflation. Conversely, a “millionaire” tax in 1970 would have been on income over $164K in 1970 to equal $1M in today’s dollars.
It never hurts to index against inflation.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:58 pm:
=== The recipient hasn’t been charged with anything. ===
Perhaps not, but that doesn’t mean that the recipient wasn’t the subject of an audit or IRS case… There are many ways to skin a cat.
- Chicago Guy - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 5:03 pm:
A guy - You, like many people, are assuming that he committed a terrible crime. But we don’t know what he did and if it would have been a crime when committed. We don’t know the age gap between him and the person when the activity took place. We don’t know if it was consensual, forced based on authority, or forced physically forced. We don’t know if it was a “mild” or “wild” interaction. We don’t know if it was a pattern of behavior or a one-time event. We don’t know the impact on the other person. We simply know he felt that the disclosure would hurt him and his family enough that he was willing to pay millions of dollars to keep it quiet.
I could honestly see Hastert paying the millions to cover up a non-criminal youthful “indiscretion” because of the potential negative impact on his reputation and lobbying income.
- All about the benjamins - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 5:09 pm:
One cannot carry large amounts of cash on their person anymore either, it will be confiscated by the police as a civil asset forfeiture, no crime need be committed for this to take place. Some people don’t trust banks due to what happened to the economy and the “too big to fail” mentality. And now if you decide not to use a bank or credit union you are presumed guilty of acquiring the money illegally and need to prove the money was acquired legally in a civil court. When large amounts of cash equate to a presumed crime something is wrong in the “land of the free and home of the brave.”
- Empty Suit - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 5:31 pm:
I thought the marijuana story was serious until I saw Al Sharptons name.
- Lester Holt's Mustache - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 6:31 pm:
==I thought the marijuana story was serious until I saw Al Sharptons name.==
“said Rev. Al Sharp, the Chicago pastor”
Reading is fundamental
- Under Further Review - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 6:32 pm:
Isn’t it misleading to compare marijuana to alcohol by making a reference to Prohibition?
Like it or not alcoholic beverages were widely consumed and legal long before the Illinois based Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League lobbied and secured the passage of the 18th Amendment. Marijuana on the other hand was not well known or commonly used. It was also a controlled substance since the criminal codes were enacted.
- Banker - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 6:46 pm:
I work in the money laundering arena. Even if he had not structured the transactions he would have been reported to FinCen due to the large amount of cash, his status as former speaker of the house, and no known reasonable purpose for the transactions. Monitoring systems are amazingly sophisticated today and politically exposed folks are already subject to having every one of their transactions periodically reviewed. I don’t agree with it but folks need to realize their bank isn’t exactly their friend due to the regulatory expectations. Funny thing is, influence trading in banking examinations and investigations rivals that of the political world.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 7:01 pm:
A guy, I feel your pain there, buddy. I haven’t had to write one over 10k to Alma Mater. Yet.
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 7:03 pm:
UFR, the first record of cannabis use was in
China about 2500 BC.
It was introduced into the Americas from Europe in the 1600s, unregulated til the early 1900s and part of the pharmacopeia until “Reefer Madness” came along.
- Banker - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 7:10 pm:
Law does not apply to checks. But given his status every single transaction he makes will be reviewed at least yearly. Fake payroll ACH or wire payments with clever memos would have not gotten him busted - so long as the victim also paid taxes on it.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 7:42 pm:
OK. My point is, if you think it shouldn’t be a crime to smoke pot and we shouldn’t go out of the way to ruin lives over it THEN you should be able to see how radically ridiculous the Hastert situation is too. No one should watch their lives ruined over crap like this.
Stop chasing celebrities for non criminal activity. Save us money. Go after real crime.
Finally, no one is “clean” when laws are this bad.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 8:29 pm:
My money say’s this note is legal tender for all debts public and private. They should probably strike the last two words.
- walker - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 9:16 pm:
Please read banker’s comment and mine above.
These, and many other transactions of much smaller amounts, would have been automatically reported to the government by the bank, regardless of whether the customer is notified or required to fill out a form.
It’s similar to when the IRS already has a copy of your W2 or similar, and knows your income, and just wants to check if you reported it as well, so as to charge you if they need to.
It used to be about discovering crime, but lately the justification for expanding it has been national security.
Agree it’s out of control.
- Soccertease - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 9:30 pm:
They busted Al Capone for tax evasion. At least they got him.
- Jerry - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 10:01 pm:
If you want to give “millennials” something they can actually use–as oppose to various forms of debt–raise the minimum wage to $15 and legalize weed.
That’s all you have to do. The rest of it will take care of itself. And sorry, the kids will be alright.
- Lynn S, - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 10:17 pm:
@ Under Further Review, 6:32;
I’m copying this from DailyKos. ” * [new] Vermont Royster, editor emeritus of the WSJ (6+ / 0-)
… at the time, penned an op-ed piece in that newspaper in the late 1980s, calling for the legalization of marijuana. It was titled “Some lessons from a Noble Experiment” comparing the War on [Some] Drugs to Prohibition.
Unfortunately the Wall Street Journal’s memory on the Web is too shallow (= doesn’t reach back far enough) for me to be able to find it and give the exact date.”
I have read the Wall Street Journal every day since my sophomore year in college, with a few days missed for snow, having a baby, etc. I remember reading this editorial by Mr. Royster, even after all these years.
In it, he talked about how he was in college in the 1920’s. Pot was legal, alcohol was illegal. According to Mr. Royster, his classmates barely touched marijuana, but they chased alcohol in all forms and drank like fiends.
Not the sort of editorial one normally expects from the folks at the WSJ (who actually have a bit of a libertarian streak in them), but it definitely made an impact on me. Many years later (or just a few years back, depending on how you count), my son–who was in high school at the time–said, “you never complain about how people selling pot are breaking the law, but you always b***h about how they’re not paying taxes.” Stunned me, but he’s right.
So perhaps one of Rich’s interns could go to the library and look up Mr. Royster’s editorial from the late 80’s-early 90’s, and perhaps Rupert Murdoch would be kind enough to allow Rich to post it here in its entirety. (Perhaps as an extra credit project, the intern could also look for any Letters to the Editor about Mr. Royster’s observations.)
I also agree with Rich that this law needs to be rewritten and indexed for inflation. My son’s father had to pay over $10,000 in back child support to me, to avoid losing his driver’s license. When I got the call from the child support line that the deposit had been made, I assumed someone had messed up and given me too much money. I went over to the Child Support office and had them look up the payment before I would touch the money, because I didn’t want to be responsible for paying back their mistake. Thank God it was correct!!
- William Jennings Bryan - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 11:00 pm:
Try depositing any cash. Now you have to give an ID. They do not want the public to have cash.
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 11:12 pm:
WJB, can’t say I’ve ever had to show an ID to deposit cash in my account, or my kids’ accounts either.
- Quizzical - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 11:58 pm:
I’m an outlier here:
First,Hastert didn’t just transfer $10,000. Over time, he transferred $1.7 million. I’m not sure if the payee should be taxed on the income, but I think the IRS should be notifyed when people don’t report that kind of income. He did it to hide behavior that begs harsh judgment. He had been third in line for the U.S. Presidency and had a skeleton in his closet so big that he agreed to pay $3.5 million to hide it. Was he ever extorted before? Did he ever compromise his office? Did he make a habit of the bad underlying behavior? There are questions that should be asked, and I hope the Feds are seriously into Hastert’s business right now.
I don’t think the Feds are all over the Rich Miller file for one moderate cash withdrawal. But if Rich starts taking out $5K every two days, I think they should at least go talk to him. Rich shouldn’t lie when they do.
Good job Feds!
- Mason born - Thursday, Jun 4, 15 @ 5:26 am:
Quizzical
I get it Hastert allegedly did a Bad Thing and whatever the feds did to catch him is justified to u.
However you say if Rich makes two 5000 $ withdrawals the feds should talk to him and he better not Lie. What if our intrepid reporter here likes driving around on weekends buying old junk to restore and sell. Since he buys from people who don’t know him they prefer cash. Let’s say Mr. Miller is a private person is he really not allowed to tell them to mind their own D@#¤ business?
It is his money legally obtained taxes paid. Where is his right to be secure in his papers and personal effects?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 4, 15 @ 5:29 am:
1. The comparison with Prohibition falls short on a major point. drinking or possessing alcohol was not a crime during Prohibition, only the commerce of marijuana was illegal.
2. I seriously doubt Individual A paid taxes on that money, Hasert knows that I am sure, and that is the real purpose of the law. We don’t like to think about it, but our government monitors our financial transactions (how else did they know?), just as sure as Google reads your email and the NSA listens to your phone calls.
3. The Bill of Rights has protected the right to trial by jury for any suit involving more than $20 for over two hundred years, and civilization has not collapsed. Maybe our founding fathers should have indexed it to inflation, but it can be amended, and it isn’t the only dollar amount in the U.S. constitution. we are making a wee bit of a mountain out of the Millionaire’s Tax. It’s a political compromise, but not on the scale of the 3/5th Compromise.
- DuPage Dave - Thursday, Jun 4, 15 @ 6:10 am:
To heck with Hastert. He deserves whatever he gets.
But yes, update the existing law. The value of $10,000 is arbitrary and out of date.
- Quizzical - Thursday, Jun 4, 15 @ 7:34 am:
Mason:
I should have been more clear. I don’t think two transactions totaling $10,000 should interest the Feds, but at some point they should take notice of serial cash withdrawals. There are many reasons a prosperous and eccentric guy like Rich might take out that kind of money. And Hastert didn’t tell them to mind their own business, he lied.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jun 4, 15 @ 8:17 am:
I’m very heartened by some of our religious leaders supporting marijuana legalization, and their eloquent statements in the Trib article as to the harm of imprisonment.
The marijuana reform movement is thankfully growing. We should be able to expect that more states will legalize marijuana, and the federal government will also hopefully do the same.