Feds allege Hastert's structuring was to cover up sex abuse

[BigDave]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/ ... index.html

They have accused Hastert of abusing five boys when he was a wrestling coach and that the illegal "structuring" (making financial transactions under $10K each to escape reporting requirements) was for hush money.

He can't be prosecuted for the original alleged abuse because the statute of limitations is expired.

#1: Why is there a statute of limitations on child sexual abuse?

#2: I .really. don't like structuring being a crime - in this case, okay, fine, whatever, I'm not going to shed any tears over it being applied here if the underlying accusations are true that he is a pedophile. But as a general rule, "structured" transactions should simply have the same reporting requirements as the aggregate amount of those transactions.

[awesome guy]

Why are you judging him and his sexual choices? It's the arbitrary age of consent, right?

[VisorBoy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/ ... index.html

They have accused Hastert of abusing five boys when he was a wrestling coach and that the illegal "structuring" (making financial transactions under $10K each to escape reporting requirements) was for hush money.

He can't be prosecuted for the original alleged abuse because the statute of limitations is expired.

#1: Why is there a statute of limitations on child sexual abuse?

#2: I .really. don't like structuring being a crime - in this case, okay, fine, whatever, I'm not going to shed any tears over it being applied here if the underlying accusations are true that he is a pedophile. But as a general rule, "structured" transactions should simply have the same reporting requirements as the aggregate amount of those transactions.

I imagine your explanation for #2 is what he did.

[BigDave]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/ ... index.html

They have accused Hastert of abusing five boys when he was a wrestling coach and that the illegal "structuring" (making financial transactions under $10K each to escape reporting requirements) was for hush money.

He can't be prosecuted for the original alleged abuse because the statute of limitations is expired.

#1: Why is there a statute of limitations on child sexual abuse?

#2: I .really. don't like structuring being a crime - in this case, okay, fine, whatever, I'm not going to shed any tears over it being applied here if the underlying accusations are true that he is a pedophile. But as a general rule, "structured" transactions should simply have the same reporting requirements as the aggregate amount of those transactions.

I imagine your explanation for #2 is what he did.

The problem is that "structuring" is ALWAYS a crime - and you just have to count on the benevolence of the all-wise and all-caring government to not prosecute you unless there is some underlying crime as the motivation for structuring (e.g. you are committing some sort of fraud via structuring, you are structuring to avoid detection of otherwise illegal or morally objectionable payments, you are using structuring for transferring money related to terrorism, etc.)

But if you, right now, today, decide that you want to move $5000 from your checking account to your investment account, then, upon further review you decide it's such a good investment, that you move another $5000 into it, guess what? You have just committed the crime of structuring and the government could prosecute you if they want to. That's the problem. And suppose that, five years from now, you're accused of some minor offense, the government can leverage a structuring change to coerce a plea agreement.

Oh, and the government can seize this money without trial or conviction. So if a government prosecutor gets a bee in their bonnet to go after you, then congratulations, they can steal all of your money and prevent you from even defending yourself. Because guess what - all of the money you have ever transferred over your lifetime is probably going to total $10000 in aggregate.

[VisorBoy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/ ... index.html

They have accused Hastert of abusing five boys when he was a wrestling coach and that the illegal "structuring" (making financial transactions under $10K each to escape reporting requirements) was for hush money.

He can't be prosecuted for the original alleged abuse because the statute of limitations is expired.

#1: Why is there a statute of limitations on child sexual abuse?

#2: I .really. don't like structuring being a crime - in this case, okay, fine, whatever, I'm not going to shed any tears over it being applied here if the underlying accusations are true that he is a pedophile. But as a general rule, "structured" transactions should simply have the same reporting requirements as the aggregate amount of those transactions.

I imagine your explanation for #2 is what he did.

The problem is that "structuring" is ALWAYS a crime - and you just have to count on the benevolence of the all-wise and all-caring government to not prosecute you unless there is some underlying crime as the motivation for structuring (e.g. you are committing some sort of fraud via structuring, you are structuring to avoid detection of otherwise illegal or morally objectionable payments, you are using structuring for transferring money related to terrorism, etc.)

But if you, right now, today, decide that you want to move $5000 from your checking account to your investment account, then, upon further review you decide it's such a good investment, that you move another $5000 into it, guess what? You have just committed the crime of structuring and the government could prosecute you if they want to. That's the problem. And suppose that, five years from now, you're accused of some minor offense, the government can leverage a structuring change to coerce a plea agreement.

Oh, and the government can seize this money without trial or conviction. So if a government prosecutor gets a bee in their bonnet to go after you, then congratulations, they can steal all of your money and prevent you from even defending yourself. Because guess what - all of the money you have ever transferred over your lifetime is probably going to total $10000 in aggregate.

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

[BigDave]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

[VisorBoy]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

What reporting requirements are there for transferring $10k on a single day vs. $5k on consecutive days? There aren't any.

Now when it comes to campaign finance, there are a lot of reporting requirements than can be avoided (illegally) by structuring.

[awesome guy]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

What reporting requirements are there for transferring $10k on a single day vs. $5k on consecutive days? There aren't any.

Now when it comes to campaign finance, there are a lot of reporting requirements than can be avoided (illegally) by structuring.

That's illegal if intended to hide the transaction, thus BD's comments.

[BigDave]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

What reporting requirements are there for transferring $10k on a single day vs. $5k on consecutive days? There aren't any.

Now when it comes to campaign finance, there are a lot of reporting requirements than can be avoided (illegally) by structuring.

Umm ... if you transfer $10K, the bank is required to report that transfer. That's a regulation that was passed post-9/11, ostensibly to enable the government to catch terrorists. (Because obviously if you transfer over $10K, you must be a terrorist.)

So if you make transfers totaling $10K, but where each individual transfer is under $10K, then the government might accuse you of structuring, which then opens them up to being able to steal all of the money you have transferred with no trial. And good luck proving your innocence and getting it back.

[RiverguyVT]

Trust the government

[absolutvt03]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

What reporting requirements are there for transferring $10k on a single day vs. $5k on consecutive days? There aren't any.

Now when it comes to campaign finance, there are a lot of reporting requirements than can be avoided (illegally) by structuring.

Umm ... if you transfer $10K, the bank is required to report that transfer. That's a regulation that was passed post-9/11, ostensibly to enable the government to catch terrorists. (Because obviously if you transfer over $10K, you must be a terrorist.)

So if you make transfers totaling $10K, but where each individual transfer is under $10K, then the government might accuse you of structuring, which then opens them up to being able to steal all of the money you have transferred with no trial. And good luck proving your innocence and getting it back.

I think CTRs have been around longer than 9/11. I have to take a course on it every year so I'll do my online training and report back.

[USN_Hokie]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

What reporting requirements are there for transferring $10k on a single day vs. $5k on consecutive days? There aren't any.

Now when it comes to campaign finance, there are a lot of reporting requirements than can be avoided (illegally) by structuring.

Umm ... if you transfer $10K, the bank is required to report that transfer. That's a regulation that was passed post-9/11, ostensibly to enable the government to catch terrorists. (Because obviously if you transfer over $10K, you must be a terrorist.)

So if you make transfers totaling $10K, but where each individual transfer is under $10K, then the government might accuse you of structuring, which then opens them up to being able to steal all of the money you have transferred with no trial. And good luck proving your innocence and getting it back.

I think CTRs have been around longer than 9/11. I have to take a course on it every year so I'll do my online training and report back.

Yes the $10k rule is older than 9/11, but there are more rules post-9/11 (cars, for example).

[HokieFanDC]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

??? You can easily show that the scenario you created wasn't structuring. The government isn't going to waste it's time trying to prosecute people where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

[HokieFanDC]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

What reporting requirements are there for transferring $10k on a single day vs. $5k on consecutive days? There aren't any.

Now when it comes to campaign finance, there are a lot of reporting requirements than can be avoided (illegally) by structuring.

Umm ... if you transfer $10K, the bank is required to report that transfer. That's a regulation that was passed post-9/11, ostensibly to enable the government to catch terrorists. (Because obviously if you transfer over $10K, you must be a terrorist.)

So if you make transfers totaling $10K, but where each individual transfer is under $10K, then the government might accuse you of structuring, which then opens them up to being able to steal all of the money you have transferred with no trial. And good luck proving your innocence and getting it back.

I think CTRs have been around longer than 9/11. I have to take a course on it every year so I'll do my online training and report back.

Yes the $10k rule is older than 9/11, but there are more rules post-9/11 (cars, for example).

It's been around ever since I've been employed in finance, so at least 25 years. Lots of people don't like it, but. mostly on the principle, not that people are actually getting prosecuted falsely

[BigDave]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

??? You can easily show that the scenario you created wasn't structuring. The government isn't going to waste it's time trying to prosecute people where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

1. Its != it's

2. Have you not seen any of the civil forfeiture stories? The government uses civil forfeiture all the time to steal money. This is no different. Make an allegation that it's structuring and they get to keep your money.

3. Even if they have no interest in prosecuting trivial cases or cases where the wrongdoing is not deliberate, if they want to come after you for something completely unrelated (you have a puddle in your back yard that constitutes a wetland and you accidentally stepped on an endangered spotted snail darter) they can use the structuring charge as additional leverage to force you to take a plea.

[USN_Hokie]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

??? You can easily show that the scenario you created wasn't structuring. The government isn't going to waste it's time trying to prosecute people where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

1. Its != it's

2. Have you not seen any of the civil forfeiture stories? The government uses civil forfeiture all the time to steal money. This is no different. Make an allegation that it's structuring and they get to keep your money.

3. Even if they have no interest in prosecuting trivial cases or cases where the wrongdoing is not deliberate, if they want to come after you for something completely unrelated (you have a puddle in your back yard that constitutes a wetland and you accidentally stepped on an endangered spotted snail darter) they can use the structuring charge as additional leverage to force you to take a plea.

Yep, particularly if the cop says he smelled drugs when he finds your wad of cash.

[133743Hokie]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/ ... index.html

They have accused Hastert of abusing five boys when he was a wrestling coach and that the illegal "structuring" (making financial transactions under $10K each to escape reporting requirements) was for hush money.

He can't be prosecuted for the original alleged abuse because the statute of limitations is expired.

#1: Why is there a statute of limitations on child sexual abuse?

#2: I .really. don't like structuring being a crime - in this case, okay, fine, whatever, I'm not going to shed any tears over it being applied here if the underlying accusations are true that he is a pedophile. But as a general rule, "structured" transactions should simply have the same reporting requirements as the aggregate amount of those transactions.

I imagine your explanation for #2 is what he did.

The problem is that "structuring" is ALWAYS a crime - and you just have to count on the benevolence of the all-wise and all-caring government to not prosecute you unless there is some underlying crime as the motivation for structuring (e.g. you are committing some sort of fraud via structuring, you are structuring to avoid detection of otherwise illegal or morally objectionable payments, you are using structuring for transferring money related to terrorism, etc.)

But if you, right now, today, decide that you want to move $5000 from your checking account to your investment account, then, upon further review you decide it's such a good investment, that you move another $5000 into it, guess what? You have just committed the crime of structuring and the government could prosecute you if they want to. That's the problem. And suppose that, five years from now, you're accused of some minor offense, the government can leverage a structuring change to coerce a plea agreement.

Oh, and the government can seize this money without trial or conviction. So if a government prosecutor gets a bee in their bonnet to go after you, then congratulations, they can steal all of your money and prevent you from even defending yourself. Because guess what - all of the money you have ever transferred over your lifetime is probably going to total $10000 in aggregate.

you're wrong

[133743Hokie]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

What reporting requirements are there for transferring $10k on a single day vs. $5k on consecutive days? There aren't any.

Now when it comes to campaign finance, there are a lot of reporting requirements than can be avoided (illegally) by structuring.

banks report all transactions greater than $10k to feds

[HokieFanDC]

I don't follow your second paragraph. It's structuring only if you're making the deposits in a certain way to avoid either reporting or some other law. Bank transfers are not a priori structuring necessarily.

And how can anyone read your mind and know why you did the transfer that way?

Prove to me that this money transfer you made five years ago wasn't to avoid the reporting requirements - because transferring $5K on consecutive days sure looks like structuring to me.

And even if they would never be able to convict you, they can steal your money from you on a judge's say so and they can bleed you dry trying to defend yourself.

??? You can easily show that the scenario you created wasn't structuring. The government isn't going to waste it's time trying to prosecute people where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

1. Its != it's

2. Have you not seen any of the civil forfeiture stories? The government uses civil forfeiture all the time to steal money. This is no different. Make an allegation that it's structuring and they get to keep your money.

3. Even if they have no interest in prosecuting trivial cases or cases where the wrongdoing is not deliberate, if they want to come after you for something completely unrelated (you have a puddle in your back yard that constitutes a wetland and you accidentally stepped on an endangered spotted snail darter) they can use the structuring charge as additional leverage to force you to take a plea.

The forfeiture abuse isn't based on structuring. Its done mostly by local police.
Same story, structuring just isn't a problem in it's application. You're talking about things that could happen, but just aren't.




Its annoying, this Its, It's, Its' thing, no?