/Nexus - 0213 - New Times Magazine/pages/0021/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
lenders that provide money to corporate polluters. "The Crime Control Act of 1990 permits the EPA to apply money-'laundering laws in criminal violations of most federal air and water pollution legislation. A lender may be convicted of money-laundering if it advances more ,than $10,000 to a company that it knows or has reason to believe has violated environmental laws. Violators may be fined $500,000 or twice the -value of the property involved, whichever is greater. A m,axlmuID 20-year prison sentence may also apply to the individual(s) approving the loan." ''The courts have defined 'proceeds' as moneys that may have been co-mingled with other, legitimate funds. As a result, all receipts coming from a facility violating environmental laws, prop erty acquired from such receipts, and perhaps even the company controlling the facility, may be 'proceeds'. All are subject to forfei ture under federal law." ''The article suggests that lenders should adopt 'due diligence' measures to avoid lending to companies in violation of environ mental laws; make personnel aware of environmental and money laundering laws." ~1986; was found guilty; [med $200,000; had his $62,000 forfeited to the IRS; and was sentenced to five years in the federal peniten tiary, all for the new federal money-laundering crime of Buying nine cashier's cheques with his own cash. That is structuring flaws in action and that sounds more like Nazi Germany than the Amqica most of us grew up in. n the government's case is shakier (or less clear-cut) than the principal's case (which, unfortunately, was a classic textbook Title 31 violation), their ploy will be to drop the criminal charges if you allow your assets to be seized without going to trial, and/or pay a stiff fine. This is now very common in. drug kingpin cases. The drug dealer goes free, the police keep his assets. 'Structuring' is a strict liability statute. That means that even if there's no criminal! intent, even if you earned the money legitimately, unless you can prove that the transactions were unrelated, the government keeps your assets. If the government decides to prosecute you criminally, in addi· tion to the mandatory prison sentence and fine, they can legally confiscate not just the money involved in the transaction, but any assets associated with the 'structured' funds. For example, if you 'structure' a withdrawal of $10,000 in cash (over any 12 month peri od) from a $1 million bank account, the gQvemment can seize the entire $l million. The seizure can proceed even without a criminal conviction or indictment, just like the forfeiture laws. ...,,~._.~...=...=_=..=.=._!!!!~....=====.= ~...=.~__ The average person might say, "Well, the ...._=.:=:__.._~,= .. ..~...!:.~.~=_=" government would never come after anyone who was totally innocent." But that's not true, he misses the point! The IRS admits that 85% of the people accused of 'structur ing' committed no other crime than seeking to protect their privacy. The courts have upheld numerous criminal structuring con victions for violations that concealed no criminal activity. If the government wins the conviction, the judge must sentence the criminal "to a mandatory prison sentence". This gives the lie to the argument that money-laundering/structuring laws are enforced to get drug dealers and fight the Wllli on drugs. The fact is that it is far easier to convict an honesJ law-abiding citizen and confiscate his property than to go after a real drug dealer who has a battery of high-priced lawyers and accountants, and who might even shoot back. In US vs Aversa, a federal judge delivered a scathing critique of the government's use of the 'structuring' statutes. Aversa's 'Crime' was initiating a secret loan to help keep information about his wife's infertility private. The loan triggered reports of 'suspicious transactions' in his bank account. In conclusion, money-laundering and !structuring' laws have linle if anything to do with the war on drugs. That is simply the excuse. They are a legal way for the socialist government bureaucrats to plunder and confiscate the peoples' as'sets (as in Nazi Germany or Russia), they are a way to enrich the government's debt-ridden cof fers, they are a way to drive us toward the cashless society, and they are a way to place Orwellian-type controls on the American people. This trend is liIcely to get worse under Bill Clinton, judging Iby a recent speech he gave in Michigan to a group of prosecutors (as reported by Money-Launderj~g Alerl): "If we really want to get the big criminals, we can focus more on the .,lDo..D~y-lallIlde.ring aspects of their operations, and use the federal authorities to deal with financial transactions that cross state lines, that deal with federally insured institutions, that deal with those things that the states will never be competent to deal with. That is what the federal govern ment ought to focus on, go after Ithe money!" Vol 2, No 13- 1993 NEXUS·21 ®