Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?

At 05:54 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>"Man wins $27,000.  He will eventually be required to report and pay taxes 
>on the amount, but not quite yet.  Stupid I/R/S people alert him BEFORE he 
>files his taxes.  He reports the payment, as is ostensibly legally required. 
> He paid the taxes owed.  Period."
>
>THEN you said, "we settled the matter."   Huh?  What, exactly, was there to 
>"settle"?  

Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the
transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place.  31
U.S.C. 5324(a).  Structuring (or attempting to structure) a financial
transaction to evade the reporting requirements is a violation of this
subsection, and 31 U.S.C. 5322(a) says that a willful violation is a
five-year felony.  Oh, and willful violation while violating another U.S.
law is a ten-year felony until 5322(b).  I'd suspect the guy was looking at
a 5322(b) charge (with "transmission of wagering information in interstate
commerce" as the "other U.S. law" being violated), but IANAL and I don't
know the case law.

EBD: Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Oh, and did you go after the guy who
wrote the three $9K checks for conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting?

					--bal

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote:

> At 05:54 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
> >"Man wins $27,000.  He will eventually be required to report and pay taxes 
> >on the amount, but not quite yet.  Stupid I/R/S people alert him BEFORE he 
> >files his taxes.  He reports the payment, as is ostensibly legally required. 
> > He paid the taxes owed.  Period."
> >
> >THEN you said, "we settled the matter."   Huh?  What, exactly, was there to 
> >"settle"?  
> 
> Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the
> transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place.  31
> U.S.C. 5324(a).  Structuring (or attempting to structure) a financial
> transaction to evade the reporting requirements is a violation of this
> subsection, and 31 U.S.C. 5322(a) says that a willful violation is a
> five-year felony.  Oh, and willful violation while violating another U.S.
> law is a ten-year felony until 5322(b).  I'd suspect the guy was looking at
> a 5322(b) charge (with "transmission of wagering information in interstate
> commerce" as the "other U.S. law" being violated), but IANAL and I don't
> know the case law.
> 
> EBD: Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Oh, and did you go after the guy who
> wrote the three $9K checks for conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting?
> 
> 					--bal

Your answer looks pretty good to me (although I must admit I didn't pull the 
statute once I saw that you replied to Bell's post).  Except that we 
didn't consider a 5322(b) charge for various reasons.

The reason which we were unhappy with our IRS agents is that structuring 
is hard to sell to a jury in a vacuum.  If you can explain the reason for 
the structuring by, for example, adding a tax charge, the structuring 
charge is much easier to understand as something that is "wrong" within 
our system of laws.

In other words, he committed the crime but it would have been more 
difficult to prove BRD at trial than if the IRS hadn't messed up.  The 
target, who is a lawyer, wanted to resolve the matter without a trial if 
possible to avoid risking incarceration and loss of his law license.

Remember, Jim, he AGREED to the disposition.  While represented by one of 
the best criminal defense lawyers in our jurisdiction (since deceased).

Since that case, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult to succeed 
in such prosecutions by toughening the knowledge requirement.  That would 
not have help the gambling attorney, because he had previously been 
involved in transactions where CTRs were filed and knew of the regs.

EBD

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote:

> EBD: Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Oh, and did you go after the guy who
> wrote the three $9K checks for conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting?
> 
> 					--bal

No.  The person who wrote the checks was a secretary for the guy in 
California who ran the pool.  While we could've asserted jurisdiction and 
prosecuted her, we didn't because she had no idea why the winner wanted 
it done that way (3 $9k checks) and satisfactorily answered the question 
put to her.  The lawyer lied big time, when initially interviewed, which 
is in itself a crime.  

And most of the members of the relevant section of our office had to recuse 
themselves, because they play basketball with the guy.

EBD