Money Orders (USPS RIP 11/3/17)

[Menachem613]

No worries here.  We are not doing anything illegal here and definitely no money laundering or evasion of taxes.  And you sir, clearly don't know what you are talking about.  It's all in the complaint, which you obviously did not take the time to carefully read.

And CV, I'll gladly defend you for free.   

Are you implying that structuring deposits to avoid the reporting threshold is not a crime if the funds were from legal sources?

[PBaruch]

Are you implying that structuring deposits to avoid the reporting threshold is not a crime if the funds were from legal sources?

I don't intentionally or unintentionally structure or not structure anything - deposits go in when the shtick is done.  Leave it to the banks to do what they feel they must.  But so far, I have not heard of anyone doing this shtick that has had an issue.

[Menachem613]

I don't intentionally or unintentionally structure or not structure anything - deposits go in when the shtick is done.  Leave it to the banks to do what they feel they must.  But so far, I have not heard of anyone doing this shtick that has had an issue.

You didn't answer the question, so I will repeat it for you.  Is structuring deposits to avoid the reporting threshold a crime if the funds were from legal sources? Yes or No?

[PBaruch]

You didn't answer the question, so I will repeat it for you.  Is structuring deposits to avoid the reporting threshold a crime if the funds were from legal sources? Yes or No?

It says in the complaint that structuring to avoid reporting requirements of the CTR is illegal.  But I doubt its as simplistic as it sounds at first glance. 

§ 5324.  Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited

(a) Domestic coin and currency transactions involving financial institutions. No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a) or 5325 [31 USCS § 5313(a) or 5325] or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326 [31 USCS § 5326], or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 USCS § 1829b] or section 123 of Public Law 91-508 [12 USCS § 1953]--
   (1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a) or 5325 [31 USCS § 5313(a) or 5325] or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by an order issued under section 5326 [31 USCS § 5326], or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 USCS § 1829b] or section 123 of Public Law 91-508 [12 USCS § 1953];
   (2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under section 5313(a) or 5325 [31 USCS § 5313(a) or 5325] or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by any order issued under section 5326 [31 USCS § 5326], or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 5326 [31 USCS § 5326], or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 USCS § 1829b] or section 123 of Public Law 91-508 [12 USCS § 1953], that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
   (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.
 
(b) Domestic coin and currency transactions involving nonfinancial trades or businesses. No person shall, for the purpose of evading the report requirements of section 5331 [31 USCS § 5331] or any regulation prescribed under such section--
   (1) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to fail to file a report required under section 5331 [31 USCS § 5331] or any regulation prescribed under such section;
   (2) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to file a report required under section 5331 [31 USCS § 5331] or any regulation prescribed under such section that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
   (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with 1 or more nonfinancial trades or businesses.
 
(c) International monetary instrument transactions. No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5316 [31 USCS § 5316]--
   (1) fail to file a report required by section 5316 [31 USCS § 5316], or cause or attempt to cause a person to fail to file such a report;
   (2) file or cause or attempt to cause a person to file a report required under section 5316 [31 USCS § 5316] that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
   (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any importation or exportation of monetary instruments.
 
(d) Criminal penalty.
   (1) In general. Whoever violates this section shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
   (2) Enhanced penalty for aggravated cases. Whoever violates this section while violating another law of the United States or as part of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $ 100,000 in a 12-month period shall be fined twice the amount provided in subsection (b)(3) or (c)(3) (as the case may be) of section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

[ckmk47]

You didn't answer the question, so I will repeat it for you.  Is structuring deposits to avoid the reporting threshold a crime if the funds were from legal sources? Yes or No?

I think it brings you to the gov'ts attention.  But in and of itself, it would be a hard crime for them to prosecute you on.  And I don't think they would try.  In the initial questioning stage, you would shoe them your paper trail and it would all go away.
NOT a pleasant situation it it actually happened.  But I don't think the 10K threshold is neared for many of us. And I don't think any of us are doing things on the scale to make them even get to the stage of being questioned by the feds.

[CountValentine]

31 U.S. Code § 5324, if you are depositing the MO's in 8k increments so that the bank should not report it.

Are you saying MO's are the same as cash under this reg.

[PBaruch]

I am reading the annotated statute now.  If you take the time to read the cases, it appears that there is some element of criminality and tax evasion involved in each of the them.  The intent of the statute, at first glance, it to track criminality and tax evasion.  That is not what we are doing.

Such as:

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of money laundering and to show that defendant knew that monies involved in financial transactions were derived from illegal drug activity, since evidence clearly showed that all transactions in question were carefully engineered to avoid reporting requirements associated with transfers of $ 10,000 or more, including use of nearly bankrupt mortgage company to repay mortgage. United States v Brown (1991, CA7 Ill) 944 F2d 1377, reh den (1991, CA7) 1991 US App LEXIS 27980.

If anyone is interested, PM me your email and I will forward you the annotated statute. 

[PBaruch]

Are you saying MO's are the same as cash under this reg.

Calm down CV. 

[george]

What does "approaching $10K" mean? Within what time frame? A day? A week? A month?

[CountValentine]

What does "approaching $10K" mean? Within what time frame? A day? A week? A month?

day

[Menachem613]

I am reading the annotated statute now.  If you take the time to read the cases, it appears that there is some element of criminality and tax evasion involved in each of the them.  The intent of the statute, at first glance, it to track criminality and tax evasion.  That is not what we are doing.

Such as:

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of money laundering and to show that defendant knew that monies involved in financial transactions were derived from illegal drug activity, since evidence clearly showed that all transactions in question were carefully engineered to avoid reporting requirements associated with transfers of $ 10,000 or more, including use of nearly bankrupt mortgage company to repay mortgage. United States v Brown (1991, CA7 Ill) 944 F2d 1377, reh den (1991, CA7) 1991 US App LEXIS 27980.

There usually is an element of tax evasion but the statute does not require it. 

[HDS]

I'm sure it isn't as simplistic as it sounds, and clearly if what we are doing is legal (which it is for most), all will come out in the wash. Again, the caution was about the wash itself, which may not be pleasant, quick, or without costs, not about the likelihood of conviction. Banks closing you down, potentially, is not pleasant, but has nothing to do with criminality either.

$10k seems like a crazy high amount to some, but not to others. Once you have a system in place that works for you, I can easily see how and why someone would want to scale up as much as possible.

To be clear once again, I posted about this here NOT to for sky-is-falling fear-mongering. I just felt that a PSA was in order. Newbies (and vets too) deserve to hear a note of caution so that they can make (and continue to make) informed decisions about what they feel comfortable with.

[CountValentine]

Calm down CV.

I am calm. 

[Menachem613]

In case the horse isn't dead yet:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/21/deposit-the-wrong-amount-of-ca

[PBaruch]

There usually is an element of tax evasion but the statute does not require it.

That is true from a plain interpretation of the statute.  However, I still stand by my prior comments - you are scaring people here for no good reason.  Find me one instance where the government prosecuted merely for structuring when there is NO element of other criminality involved? 

[PBaruch]

In case the horse isn't dead yet:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/21/deposit-the-wrong-amount-of-ca

Oh well.  But I am sure that is the exception.  Seems like they had a beef with this particular guy.

[CountValentine]

To be clear once again, I posted about this here NOT to for sky-is-falling fear-mongering. I just felt that a PSA was in order. Newbies (and vets too) deserve to hear a note of caution so that they can make (and continue to make) informed decisions about what they feel comfortable with.

I will be blunt. Anyone making a decision based on what is posted here is an idiot.

[PBaruch]

I will be blunt. Anyone making a decision based on what is posted here is an idiot.

Bravo!  And with that thought, I am getting back to work that pays the bills.

[HDS]

I will be blunt. Anyone making a decision based on what is posted here is an idiot.

See, but that's exactly what many people, lurkers and posters do, right or wrong, regardless of what you think they should do. They hear about the Delta glitch or the Israel glitch or whatever, and they sign up for the Twitter feed, and then they get interested in learning how all this stuff works. They come to the forums for knowledge, and by and large they find it.

You (and PBaruch), both of you who I respect, clearly have strong feelings about MOs, and have you set ups that you are comfortable with that work for you. That's great. Its clear that you are not scared by the various articles and information, and that this won't change how you operate - nor was that ever the goal.

Explain to me what the harm is in letting people know that, oh-by-the-way, there is some level of risk involved here. This is not the Stop & Shop gas deal, or the Walmart applesauce deal. The risk may be very low. You may not consider the risk a risk. You may be perfectly comfortable with the risk.

Does it hurt you somehow for people to have it on their radar?

[PBaruch]

See, but that's exactly what many people, lurkers and posters do, right or wrong, regardless of what you think they should do. They hear about the Delta glitch or the Israel glitch or whatever, and they sign up for the Twitter feed, and then they get interested in learning how all this stuff works. They come to the forums for knowledge, and by and large they find it.

You (and PBaruch), both of you who I respect, clearly have strong feelings about MOs, and have you set ups that you are comfortable with that work for you. That's great. Its clear that you are not scared by the various articles and information, and that this won't change how you operate - nor was that ever the goal.

Explain to me what the harm is in letting people know that, oh-by-the-way, there is some level of risk involved here. This is not the Stop & Shop gas deal, or the Walmart applesauce deal. The risk may be very low. You may not consider the risk a risk. You may be perfectly comfortable with the risk.

Does it hurt you somehow for people to have it on their radar?

No worries mate!  Ahavas Yisroel for all here.  (except some people I really really can't stand that have not been posting in this thread).