1994-08-11 - Re: e$ & Reporting Cash Trans

Header Data

From: binski@u.washington.edu
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: c10896e44a58988de83cd72dba529622be42806cf67ab06592cd554b010ed669
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9408111654.A23550-0100000@carson.u.washington.edu>
Reply To: <9408102125.AA09600@fnord.lehman.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-11 23:29:39 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 11 Aug 94 16:29:39 PDT

Raw message

From: binski@u.washington.edu
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 94 16:29:39 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: e$ & Reporting Cash Trans
In-Reply-To: <9408102125.AA09600@fnord.lehman.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9408111654.A23550-0100000@carson.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>     ...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

Thread

• Return to August 1994

• Return to “binski@u.washington.edu”
• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>”
• Return to “Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>”

• Return to “solman@MIT.EDU”

• Unknown thread root
  • 1994-08-10 (Wed, 10 Aug 94 07:29:00 PDT) - Re: e$ - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
    • 1994-08-10 (Wed, 10 Aug 94 14:26:41 PDT) - Re: e$ - Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
      • 1994-08-11 (Thu, 11 Aug 94 16:29:39 PDT) - Re: e$ & Reporting Cash Trans - binski@u.washington.edu
        • 1994-08-12 (Thu, 11 Aug 94 20:35:37 PDT) - Re: e$ & Reporting Cash Trans - Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
          • 1994-08-12 (Fri, 12 Aug 94 09:29:37 PDT) - Re: e$ & Reporting Cash Trans - solman@MIT.EDU