From: "Brian A. LaMacchia" <bal@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 22:32:02 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961225013128.00cfb688@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:35 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote:
>>Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing.  "Reporting" here doesn't mean
>>"report the income to the IRS on your tax return."  It refers to the report
>>the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of
>>$10,000.
>
>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

See in clause (1) where it says, "cause or attempt to cause a domestic
financial institution to fail to file a report required under section
5313(a)"?  See the words "attempt to cause"?  Now go back to EBD's original
post.  See where he said "Report of Suspicious Transaction"?  See the
errors in your argument above?  Good.

Your homework assignment is to go read _Ratzlaf v. US_, 510 U.S. 135, 114
S.Ct. 655, and summarize for the list.

					--bal