From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:58:35 -0800 (PST)
To: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
In-Reply-To: <199612251920.LAA31394@slack.lne.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961226005615.4683I-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Eric Murray wrote:

> .... 
> 
> This is really scary to someone like me who doesn't often read
> laws.  They're required to report "suspicious" transactions
> (with the definition of "suspicious" left completely wide open)
> and they're not allowed to tell you that you have been reported.
> This sounds like police-state tactics, not something that would
> happen in a free and open society.
> 
> It's also interesting to note that section 5313(a) similarly does
> not define what is to be reported.  Is this defined elsewhere, or
> can it be changed at any time by the Secretary of the Treasury?
> 
> Reading section 5324, it sounds (to me, a layman) that there has to
> be some intent to evade the reporting requirements.  Does this mean
> that prosecutors would have to prove intent?  Does simply getting
> checks for $9000 prove intent?  I sure hope not as I have recently received
> a couple checks for consulting work that have just happened to be
> slightly under ten grand.

U.S.v. Ratzlaff, the case I whose name I was trying to remember, but 
couldn't and which Brian LaMacchia mentioned in a post, should give you 
much comfort.  I think Jim is going to report to the list on the case, so 
I won't go into any details.

EBD 



> 
> -- 
> Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
> PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF
>