From: "Brian A. LaMacchia" <bal@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 21:12:44 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961225001207.00cde89c@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:17 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote:
>>Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the
>>transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place.  31
>>U.S.C. 5324(a). 
>
>Who says?  He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time.  The 
>evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence 
>of the opposite.  

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.  If the guy didn't report the $27K as gambling winnings on his
1040 then he'd be guilty of tax evasion in addition to the structuring
charges, but that's an independent issue.  Go read 31 U.S.C. 5324
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/).

>Again, he clearly DID NOT "evade the reporting requirement."  Brian Davis 
>admitted this. (Whether he ever intended to do this is sheer speculation on 
>the part of anyone else.  We'll never know; as Davis pointed out, the IRS 
>screwed up.)   Even if the standard of evidence was as low as "preponderance 
>of evidence" (which it, of course, is not in a criminal case) he SHOULD have 
>won.  By waiting until the return was filed and the tax was paid, the IRS 
>was allowing him to resolve whatever ambiguity remained.

Of course he attempted to evade: three checks, deposits the first in bank
1, the second in bank 2, and the third in bank 1 again.  Trying to not
cause either bank to file the form that says "we just got a deposit in
excess of $10K."  That's structuring to evade.  Welcome to Allenwood.

					--bal