Re: e$

Jim Dixon says:
> Precisely what do you mean by "is used to avoid federal transfer reporting
> requirements" ?  If you say that it is illegal, can you direct us to or
> quote the relevant statute?

I don't care to. It is widely known and understood that structuring
transactions to avoid the $10,000 and over transaction reporting
requirements is a felonly. Go and find out why on your own.

> My point is that checks made out to cash are not regarded as an
> alternative currency.

My point is that the government doesn't give a flying fuck. They are
simply trying to stop you from playing games. The law isn't like
geometry -- there aren't axioms and rules for deriving one thing from
another. The general principle is that they want to track all your
transactions, and if you make it difficult they will either use
existing law to jail you, or will produce a new law to try to do the
same. Your hair spliting is really completely irrelevant.

Perry

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 10:28:48 -0400
    From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>

    Jim Dixon says:
    > Precisely what do you mean by "is used to avoid federal transfer reporting
    > requirements" ?  If you say that it is illegal, can you direct us to or
    > quote the relevant statute?
    
    I don't care to. It is widely known and understood that structuring
    transactions to avoid the $10,000 and over transaction reporting
    requirements is a felonly. Go and find out why on your own.

A good starting place would be the hermes project (aka
courts.usa.federal.supreme).  There is (was?) an archive at
hermes.cwru.edu.  There was a case decided within the last year
involving a payment restructuring.  At issue was whether the
restructuring took place with the *intent* to avoid the reporting
requirements.  This is completely off-the-top-of-my-head.  I'm not
going to do any actual research on this.

Another place would be the local branch office of your bank.

I believe that the reporting requirement has been at $3000 for a
number of years.

			Rick

>     ...structuring
>     transactions to avoid the $10,000 and over transaction reporting
>     requirements is a felonly.
> 
> There was a case decided within the last year
> involving a payment restructuring.  At issue was whether the
> restructuring took place with the *intent* to avoid the reporting
> requirements. 
> 			Rick

Wall Street Journal, perhaps April '94?  I think it was a
high-level court ruling that essentially said it's perfectly
ok to intentionally structure cash transfers to avoid the $10,000 
reporting requirement.  That's all I recall.

bf

From: binski@u.washington.edu
    Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT)

    I think it was a high-level court ruling that essentially said
    it's perfectly ok to intentionally structure cash transfers to
    avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement.  That's all I recall.

No.  What was at issue was whether the prosecution was required and/or
able to demonstrate the defendant's intent to circumvent the reporting
requirements.  If the defendant had admitted such an intent, there
would not have been a case.

			Rick

>     From: binski@u.washington.edu
>     Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
> 
>     I think it was a high-level court ruling that essentially said
>     it's perfectly ok to intentionally structure cash transfers to
>     avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement.  That's all I recall.
> 
> No.  What was at issue was whether the prosecution was required and/or
> able to demonstrate the defendant's intent to circumvent the reporting
> requirements.  If the defendant had admitted such an intent, there
> would not have been a case.

Of course this means that if you split e-cash transfers into small amounts
to avoid any security problems that could otherwise affect the entire
transfer, you are in the clear. While the logic of this decision is
debatable, it should certainly be sufficient to win in court. Especially
if it is built into the software as a feature.

JWS