Nexus - 0213 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

lenders that provide money to corporate polluters. 1986; was found guilty; fined $200,000; had his $62,000 forfeited "The Crime Control Act of 1990 permits the EPA to apply _to the IRS; and was sentenced to five years in the federal peniten- money-laundering laws in criminal violations of most federal air _tiary, all for the new federal money-laundering crime of buying and water pollution legislation. A lender may be convicted of _ nine cashier's cheques with his own cash. That is structuring laws money-laundering if it advances more than $10,000 to a company _ in action and that sounds more like Nazi Germany than the that it knows or has reason to believe has violated environmental © America most of us grew up in. laws. Violators may be fined $500,000 or twice the value of the If the government's case is shakier (or less clear-cut) than the property involved, whichever is greater. A maximum 20-year _ principal's case (which, unfortunately, was a classic textbook Title prison sentence may also apply to the individual(s) approving the 31 violation), their ploy will be to drop the criminal charges if you loan.” : allow your assets to be seized without going to trial, and/or pay a "The courts have defined ‘proceeds’ as moneys that may have __ stiff fine. This is now very common in drug kingpin cases. The been co-mingled with other, legitimate funds. As a result, all drug dealer goes free, the police keep his assets. ‘Structuring’ is a receipts coming from a facility violating environmental laws, prop- _ Strict liability statute. That means that even if there's no criminal erty acquired from such receipts, and perhaps even the company _ intent, even if you earned the money legitimately, unless you can controlling the facility, may be ‘proceeds’. All are subject to forfei- prove that the transactions were unrelated, the government keeps ture under federal law." your assets. "The article suggests that lenders should adopt ‘due diligence’ If the government decides to prosecute you criminally, in addi- measures to avoid lending to companies in violation of environ- tion to the mandatory prison sentence and fine, they can ‘legally mental laws; make personnel aware of environmental and money- _— confiscate not just the money involved in the transaction, but any laundering laws." assets associated with the ‘structured’ funds. For example, if you ‘structure’ a withdrawal of $10,000 in cash (over any 12 month peri- STRUCTURING LAWS od) from a $1 million bank account, the government can seize the ‘Structuring’ is defined by the IRS as any effort to avoid reporting “ntire $1 million. The seizure can proceed even without a criminal cash or other monetary transactions over conviction or indictment, just like the forfeiture laws. $10,000 by breaking them down into smaller The average person might say, "Well, the ‘related’ transactions over any 12 month peri- government would never come after anyone od (defined by USC 31, Sec. 5322-5324 who was totally innocent." But that's not Money-Laundering Control Act of 1986, as . true, he misses the point! The IRS admits amended). A structuring violation carries The IRS admits that 85% —tha's5% of the people accused of 'structur- with it a criminal penalty with a manda! ' f ing’ committed no other crime than seeking prison term, re i fr prom of the Pp eople accused of to protect their privacy. The courts have structured funds and money ‘connected’ to ‘Structuring’ committed —uphela = criminal poner E con- them. (A civil penalty of $25,000 fine with ss victions for violations that concealed no confiscation of structured funds also exists.) ‘no other crime than criminal activity. If the government wins Monetary instruments included in structuring seeking to protect their the conviction, the judge must sentence the are cash, cashier's cheques, money orders, . criminal "to a mandatory prison sentence". and traveller's cheques. privacy. This gives the lie to the argument that ‘Structuring’ is now defined as money-laun- money-laundering/structuring laws are dering, and is a criminal offence. You can enforced to get drug dealers and fight the now go to jail for dealing in cash to protect war on drugs. The fact is that it is far easier your financial privacy, if the IRS thinks to convict an honest law-abiding citizen and you're trying to hide or structure your transactions or monetary Confiscate his property than to go after a real drug dealer who has a instruments. Furthermore, it's against the law for a bank or mer- battery of high-priced lawyers and accountants, and who might chant to tell you that you might be violating the law. This can get even shoot back. him prosecuted as part of your structuring ‘conspiracy’. If they In US vs Aversa, a federal judge delivered a scathing critique of think your behaviour is suspicious, they may fill out a form on you _ the government's use of the ‘structuring’ statutes. Aversa's ‘crime’ without telling you and file it with the IRS who will promptly audit was initiating a secret loan to help keep information about his you, or begin a criminal investigation. wife's infertility private. The loan triggered reports of ‘suspicious A few examples of structuring violations include a series of | tansactions' in his bank account. ‘related withdrawals or deposits over $10,000 (i.e., several in any In conclusion, money-laundering and ‘structuring’ laws have little 12-month period) in monetary instruments without filing a cash _if anything to do with the war on drugs. That is simply the excuse. reporting report (CTR) to the government, or making payments of | They are a legal way for the socialist government bureaucrats to $10,000 or more in monetary instruments on an installment loan _ plunder and confiscate the peoples’ assets (as in Nazi Germany or without filing a CTR. One illustration this writer is familiar with is Russia), they are a way to enrich the government's debt-ridden cof- a high school principal who lived in the South, with no criminal _ fers, they are a way to drive us toward the cashless society, and record, no history of drug usage or dealing, or even a speeding _they are a way to place Orwellian-type controls on the American record--he simply believed in privacy. About two years ago, he —_ people. purchased $62,000 worth or krugerrands from a coin dealer and This trend is likely to get worse under Bill Clinton, judging by a several days later mailed nine separate cashiers cheques to the deal- recent speech he gave in Michigan to a group of prosecutors (as er, of sizes varying between $6,000 and $9,000. reported by Money-Laundering Alert): “If we really want to get the He had accumulated $62,000 in cash (after taxes) overa 15 or 20 __ big criminals, we can focus more on the money-laundering aspects year period, believing that privacy and Amendment IV of the US __ of their operations, and use the federal authorities to deal with Constitution were still in effect. He was wrong, they are not! The _ financial transactions that cross state lines, that deal with federally man went to nine separate banks to buy cashier's cheques, three of _insured institutions, that deal with those things that the states will them (33%) turned him in to the IRS, the man was indicted on 16 never be competent to deal with. That is what the federal govern- counts of criminal violation of Title 31 of The Bank Secrecy Actof ment ought to focus on, go after the money!" 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 maximum 20-year prison sentence aay 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." Vol 2, No 13 - 1993 NEXUS¢21