Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Money Laundering -- Re Bill Branscum's Post

Expand Messages
  • John Huheey
    Bill In Ratzlaf vs US, the Supremes took the position that Ratzlaf not only had to know that structuring (breaking up large cash transactions into amounts
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 1, 2005

      In Ratzlaf vs US, the Supremes took the position that Ratzlaf not only had to know that structuring (breaking up large cash transactions into amounts under $10,000 to avoid CTR reporting to Treasury by the banks) was unlawful, but also had to have mens rea (a guilty purpose) for the structuring activity to be a "willfull" violation of the Antistructuring laws. The Supremes basically took the position that the trial judge erred when he told the jury that all the prosecution had to establish was that Ratzlaf knew structuring was illegal and that Ratzlaf had intentionally split a large cash transaction so as to avoid the issuance of CTRs.

      The point I think you are trying to make is that structuring, in and of itself may not always be illegal. In the case of Ratzlaf, there was no apparent criminal purpose behind his decision to break up a $100,000 payment on his gambling debt to a casino into amounts under $10,000 - the payment to the casino wasn't illegal and the money he used to pay his debt was not proven to be from any unlawful activity (much less from a SUA).

      Did I pass the test:)

      John Huheey
      Secure Systems Group, Ltd
      Private Investigations
      Dayton, OH
      Ph: (937) 673-4546 Fax: (937) 434-6060
      Ohio License 2003008162
      to "willfully" The in Ratzlaf v US
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: oracleintl@...
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:35 AM
      Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [infoguys-list] Re: Money Laundering -- Re JHuheey's post

      In a message dated 3/1/2005 9:59:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      JHuheey@... writes:

      My inclination is that the perp will be charged w/Money Laundering if the
      Govt can prove he either knew or suspected that the money he was smurfing was
      derived from a Specified Unlawfull Activity (even if the money, in fact, was
      supplied by the G for the sting).

      Completely correct - but only if the government supplied it for a sting can
      you make the case without it being proceeds of SUA.

      So the post makes sense as a stand alone, the point we are discussing is

      Money Laundering cases can only be made when the actor believes that the
      funds involved are the proceeds of criminal activity AND they are, in fact, the
      proceeds of the specific unlawful activities specified in the statute UNLESS
      it is a sting and the government set it up using clean money.

      For example, if you believe that Joe is involved in running prostitutes and
      you agree to engage in a transaction but the money turns out to be the
      proceeds of narcotics smuggling - you're screwed. Just because you didn't know what
      the nature of the SUA was, won't help.

      On the other hand, if you believe that Joe is running prostitutes and you
      agree to engage in a money laundering transaction, but he was "only funnin" and
      it's actually lottery winnings - you dodged a bullet.

      Now, suppose Joe tells you that his Dad is a nitwit who has always believed
      that the government would collapse so he has put cash in his mattress all his
      life, but now that Joe has inherited the mattress, he doesn't know what to do
      with a couple of cubic feet of hundred dollar bills. He asks you to
      deposit 8,000 every few days into an account while he does the same. You
      completely believe the money is clean, the money is in fact completely clean, you
      understand that you are going to help Joe avoid reporting requirements, but since
      the money is clean, you don't see any harm in that and (rightly or wrongly)
      you don't think it's against the law.

      1. Is it a crime?

      2. What impact does the US Supreme Court Case Ratzlaf v US have to do with

      Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
      Oracle International
      _www.FraudsAndScams.com_ (http://www.FraudsAndScams.com)
      _www.OracleInternational.com_ (http://www.OracleInternational.com)
      PO Box 10728
      Naples, FL 34101
      (239) 304-1639
      (239) 304-1640 Fax
      Illegitimi non carborundum

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      To subscribe, send an empty message to <a href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
      To unsubscribe, send a message to <a href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:

      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.