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

Money Laundering

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    John - Although you are 100% correct about the court s posture on the Ratzlaf case regarding restructuring, the rules changed immediately thereafter, if not
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 2 2:54 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      John -

      Although you are 100% correct about the court's posture on the Ratzlaf case
      regarding restructuring, the rules changed immediately thereafter, if not
      sooner.

      Originally the courts had rejected any notion that the perps had to have
      knowledge that all forms of structuring were illegal and that they acted
      willfully. Then came the case of U.S. vs. Aversa which was the first, I believe, of
      quite a few more liberal interpretations of the code which totally devested the
      government's position.

      There were so many conflicting cases and the circuit courts were truly split.
      However, the majority still believed that having full knowledge that
      structuring was illegal were not a mandatory element of the crime. Then came
      Ratzlaf. The decision was sharply divided but by a majority vote they reversed the
      majority rule among the circuit courts really upsetting the government's
      criminal prosecutions for structuring and pissing off the AG since many pending
      prosecutions had to be dismissed. Add that to the fact that the Ratzlaf decision
      was retroactive and you had one big mess.

      Congress immediately amended the statute. I believe it came under the Riegle
      Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 but I know it
      went into effect the 4th quarter, 1994. From that time forward it was only
      necessary to show and prove a "restructuring defendant" acted with the intent of
      evading the CTR reporting requirements. Ignorance, again, was no excuse.

      I might be wrong but I believe that restructuring is illegal regardless of
      why, when, where or by whom and even if there is no true "laundering".

      Sincerely yours,
      Sue
      ____________________________________________________
      Sue Sarkis
      Sarkis Detective Agency
      (est. 1976)
      PI 6564
      1346 Ethel Street
      Glendale, CA 91207-1826
      818-242-2505
      818-246-3001 FAX

      If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank
      a military veteran.

      God Bless America forever !!


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Head Hunter
      Which John??? ... From: suesarkis@aol.com To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: [infoguys-list] Money Laundering
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 2 3:24 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Which John???
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: suesarkis@...
        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:54 PM
        Subject: [infoguys-list] Money Laundering



        John -

        Although you are 100% correct about the court's posture on the Ratzlaf case
        regarding restructuring, the rules changed immediately thereafter, if not
        sooner.

        Originally the courts had rejected any notion that the perps had to have
        knowledge that all forms of structuring were illegal and that they acted
        willfully. Then came the case of U.S. vs. Aversa which was the first, I believe, of
        quite a few more liberal interpretations of the code which totally devested the
        government's position.

        There were so many conflicting cases and the circuit courts were truly split.
        However, the majority still believed that having full knowledge that
        structuring was illegal were not a mandatory element of the crime. Then came
        Ratzlaf. The decision was sharply divided but by a majority vote they reversed the
        majority rule among the circuit courts really upsetting the government's
        criminal prosecutions for structuring and pissing off the AG since many pending
        prosecutions had to be dismissed. Add that to the fact that the Ratzlaf decision
        was retroactive and you had one big mess.

        Congress immediately amended the statute. I believe it came under the Riegle
        Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 but I know it
        went into effect the 4th quarter, 1994. From that time forward it was only
        necessary to show and prove a "restructuring defendant" acted with the intent of
        evading the CTR reporting requirements. Ignorance, again, was no excuse.

        I might be wrong but I believe that restructuring is illegal regardless of
        why, when, where or by whom and even if there is no true "laundering".

        Sincerely yours,
        Sue
        ____________________________________________________
        Sue Sarkis
        Sarkis Detective Agency
        (est. 1976)
        PI 6564
        1346 Ethel Street
        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
        818-242-2505
        818-246-3001 FAX

        If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank
        a military veteran.

        God Bless America forever !!


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






        <p><hr></p>
        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/>
        <p><hr></p>


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT





        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/

        b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Huheey
        Wow!! I am impressed with the level of knowledge and expertise within this Group re: Structuring and Money Laundering. Bill Branscum and Sue Sarkis are really
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 2 4:17 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Wow!! I am impressed with the level of knowledge and expertise within this Group re: Structuring and Money Laundering. Bill Branscum and Sue Sarkis are really knowledgeable - I'd like to know more about your respective backgrounds. I was a federal agent for over twenty-five years and worked many large money laundering cases, but only a couple of them included charges relating to the defendant's structuring activities. (One involved the defendant's efforts to repatriate bribe money he had previously laundered into foreign accounts - another related to the defendant's efforts to hide cash he had received as bribes from foreign officials). I worked for the Department of Defense, so I never had much involvement in drug or tax evasion cases.

          Again, Cudos to these knowledgeable professionals...

          John Huheey
          Secure Systems Group, Ltd
          Private Investigations
          Dayton, OH
          Ph: (937) 673-4546 Fax: (937) 434-6060
          Ohio License 2003008162
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: suesarkis@...
          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:54 PM
          Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [infoguys-list] Money Laundering



          John -

          Although you are 100% correct about the court's posture on the Ratzlaf case
          regarding restructuring, the rules changed immediately thereafter, if not
          sooner.

          Originally the courts had rejected any notion that the perps had to have
          knowledge that all forms of structuring were illegal and that they acted
          willfully. Then came the case of U.S. vs. Aversa which was the first, I believe, of
          quite a few more liberal interpretations of the code which totally devested the
          government's position.

          There were so many conflicting cases and the circuit courts were truly split.
          However, the majority still believed that having full knowledge that
          structuring was illegal were not a mandatory element of the crime. Then came
          Ratzlaf. The decision was sharply divided but by a majority vote they reversed the
          majority rule among the circuit courts really upsetting the government's
          criminal prosecutions for structuring and pissing off the AG since many pending
          prosecutions had to be dismissed. Add that to the fact that the Ratzlaf decision
          was retroactive and you had one big mess.

          Congress immediately amended the statute. I believe it came under the Riegle
          Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 but I know it
          went into effect the 4th quarter, 1994. From that time forward it was only
          necessary to show and prove a "restructuring defendant" acted with the intent of
          evading the CTR reporting requirements. Ignorance, again, was no excuse.

          I might be wrong but I believe that restructuring is illegal regardless of
          why, when, where or by whom and even if there is no true "laundering".

          Sincerely yours,
          Sue
          ____________________________________________________
          Sue Sarkis
          Sarkis Detective Agency
          (est. 1976)
          PI 6564
          1346 Ethel Street
          Glendale, CA 91207-1826
          818-242-2505
          818-246-3001 FAX

          If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank
          a military veteran.

          God Bless America forever !!


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






          <p><hr></p>
          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/>
          <p><hr></p>


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT





          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/

          b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • suesarkis@aol.com
          John Carman asks, Which John? . The John who wrote the related post re: Ratzlaf that I responded to. I believe his name is John Huheey. Sincerely yours, Sue
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 3 10:56 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            John Carman asks, "Which John?".

            The John who wrote the related post re: Ratzlaf that I responded to. I
            believe his name is John Huheey.

            Sincerely yours,
            Sue
            ____________________________________________________
            Sue Sarkis
            Sarkis Detective Agency
            (est. 1976)
            PI 6564
            1346 Ethel Street
            Glendale, CA 91207-1826
            818-242-2505
            818-246-3001 FAX

            If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank
            a military veteran.

            God Bless America forever !!


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • suesarkis@aol.com
            Dear John Huheey - Since I know some of Bill Branscum s background, I can assure you our knowledge and experience stem from totally different experiences. In
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 3 11:30 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear John Huheey -

              Since I know some of Bill Branscum's background, I can assure you our
              knowledge and experience stem from totally different experiences. In my case I owned
              3 bail bond agencies for about 20, 25 years each and between the drug cases,
              cash collateral and nebia hearings as well as having to complete many IRS Form
              # 8300 I learned by bonafide experience.

              Also, as a PI I had two restructuring defendants when the Ratzlaf decision
              was handed down. The dismissal of both cases caused me to do a lot of reading.

              Sincerely yours,
              Sue
              ____________________________________________________
              Sue Sarkis
              Sarkis Detective Agency
              (est. 1976)
              PI 6564
              1346 Ethel Street
              Glendale, CA 91207-1826
              818-242-2505
              818-246-3001 FAX

              If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank
              a military veteran.

              God Bless America forever !!

              Sincerely yours,
              Sue
              ____________________________________________________
              Sue Sarkis
              Sarkis Detective Agency
              (est. 1976)
              PI 6564
              1346 Ethel Street
              Glendale, CA 91207-1826
              818-242-2505
              818-246-3001 FAX

              If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank
              a military veteran.

              God Bless America and her allies forever !!


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