From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:00:42 -0800 (PST)
To: Eric Murray <bal@martigny.ai.mit.edu (Brian A. LaMacchia)
Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
Message-ID: <199612260700.XAA25095@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:20 AM 12/25/96 -0800, Eric Murray wrote:
>Brian A. LaMacchia writes:
>> 
>> At 09:35 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>> >Bzzt, wrong answer!  By definition, if the report was filed as a
>> consequence of >the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT
>> and the person didn't >evade it!   (whether he wanted to evade it is, of
>> course, pure speculation on your >part.  It is, obviously, questionable
>> whether the government can make a person's >mere _desires_ criminal.)
>> 
>> Please, Jim, *go read the law*.  Do it now, before you even think about
>> replying to this message, else you'll say something else stupid and
>> irrelevant.  Look, I'll even give you the complete, specific URL for the
>> section of the U.S. Code in question; all you have to do is cut-and-paste
>> it into your favorite Web browser:
>> 
>> 	http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5324.html
>
>It appears that Jim's 100% wrong- they omit the 'Suspicious
>Transaction' report in the list of reports that the gambler was
>busted for trying to avoid:

Well, I agree that I was "shooting from the hip" on my statement that the 
government doesn't prohibit informing the victim (and yes, such people are 
indeed properly called "victims") that a report was made (see below).  
Imagine that, Jim Bell OVERestimating the ethics of the government!  That'll 
teach me a lesson.


>
>
>Section 5324:
>
>(a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions. - No person shall for the
>purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a),
>      section 5325, or the regulations issued thereunder or section 5325
>      or regulations prescribed under such section 5325 (FOOTNOTE 1)
>      with respect to such transaction -
>
>      (FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. See 1992 Amendment note below.
>			(1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution
>            to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a),
>            section 5325, or the regulations issued thereunder or
>            section 5325 or regulations prescribed under such section
>            5325; (FOOTNOTE 1)
>            (2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial
>            institution to file a report required under section 5313(a),
>            section 5325, or the regulations issued thereunder or
>            section 5325 or regulations prescribed under such section
>            5325 (FOOTNOTE 1) 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.

Notice that they don't define what would constitute an "attempt to cause a 
domestic financial institution to fail to file a report..."  Since from the 
story told, it is obvious that there is no hard-and-fast rule on reporting, 
it should be equally obvious that there is no sure-fire way to prevent a 
report.  As such, equally so, there is no object way to tell (other than, 
say, a direct statement by somebody) that a person's actions were intended 
to avoid a report.


>Section 5313 is the 'normal' reporting section, Section 5318(g)
>is "suspicious" transactions (note that it wasn't listed in 5324 above):
>
>(g) Reporting of Suspicious Transactions. - 
>            (1) In general. - The Secretary may require any financial
>            institution, and any director, officer, employee, or agent
>            of any financial institution, to report any suspicious
>            transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or
>            regulation. 
>
>			(2) Notification prohibited. - A financial
>            institution, and a director, officer, employee, or agent of
>            any financial institution, who voluntarily reports a
>            suspicious transaction, or that reports a suspicious
>            transaction pursuant to this section or any other authority,
>            may not notify any person involved in the transaction that
>            the transaction has been reported.
>
>
>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.


Given that the 1st amendment to the US Constitution supposedly is intended 
to guarantee freedom of speech, any prior restraint on speech must be 
presumed to be unconstitutional unless proved to be constitutional.  Since 
under the circumstances described there is no known crime or ongoing 
investigation, such a prohibition on speech doesn't even rise to the level 
of hypothetical "obstruction of justice" which is occasionally brought up as 
a phony justification for such bans.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com