From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:22:37 -0800 (PST)
To: bal@martigny.ai.mit.edu (Brian A. LaMacchia)
Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961225013128.00cfb688@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199612251920.LAA31394@slack.lne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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:


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.


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.

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.


-- 
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