20546, in my previous career|
Posted by amazona on Sat Nov-22-03 04:05 PM
I had to deal with large sums of cash and therefore I had to spend untold time and effort to make sure I was in compliance with the Money Laundering Act of 1986 so that I could avoid structuring or any appearance of structuring. The best way is to make sure that you regularly get CTRs filed -- that you withdraw/deposit $11,000 say or anything over the $10,000 limit -- so that you can show you do not have a pattern of trying to hide your cash activity by keeping all withdrawals/deposits under $10,000. Of course, since I was not involved in an illegal activity, I really didn't care if CTRs were filed; I wanted them to be filed, as a record that I was in compliance with the law.
This is well-established law, and it has teeth. Rush's case is a slamdunk case for federal prosecutors because all they need for evidence is the paperwork showing the suspicious transactions. All financial institutions are supposed to report suspicious withdrawals on a suspicious activity report. "Suspicious" can be whatever they think it is -- I've heard of it happening for a cash transaction for as little as $3,000 if the financial institution cannot be certain of the source of the cash. It is definitely required any time a customer makes repeated transactions in the amount of $9,000 or $9,500 or (and God help you if you are this stupid) $9,900. It sounds like the federal investigators actually caught the bank first and got a list of people involved in the suspicious activity but for an unknown reason didn't proceed with prosecuting the individual customers -- very strange, since prosecutors generally love slamdunk prosecutions. My guess is that since they didn't want to be accused of unequal enforcement, they decided not to arrest anyone involved in the money laundering when they found Rush's name on the list.
I'm shocked this is getting so little play but I'm not sure why. Most people never see any great amount of cash and have no idea of the laws regarding it so they maybe don't understand the severity of the law Rush violated.
As most drug lords never handle any drugs themselves, the Money Laundering Act is the only tool for prosecuting them. In Rush's case, he has either ingested all the drugs or distributed to friends at parties or whatever...but we don't need the drug evidence because he can be more easily prosecuted under the Money Laundering Act anyway. We just need law enforcement officers and prosecutors with courage and will. And they have to be FEDERAL LEOs and prosecutors; this is a FEDERAL offense and out of the hands of the states of Florida or New York.
I don't believe anyone has the courage to enforce the law in this case. I honestly do not.