Dennis Hasters and "over-criminalization"

Great article here.

formatting link

Pretty much anyone who does not solely have a 9-5 job, can be prosecuted for all kinds of odd "crimes" that a big fraction of people are inadvertently committing.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus4936
Loading thread data ...

And, as the article points out, he's getting indited, in part, for laws that he got paid a lot of money to support. So it's not like he can bitch about it too loudly.

Reply to
Tim Wescott

Here's how I understand this.

I have never structured transactions. I know what structuring is (anyone in business should know this) and I never get even close to structuring anything and generally do not deal with cash much.

However, a long time ago I tried withdrawing over 10,000 and I got all kinds of hassle with that, stupid questions from the bankers, warnings about how my money could be stolen (like it could not be stolen from the bank) etc. It was a very unpleasant experience being hassled for what was not their business.

So, if I had a regular need to withdraw money, like to pass it to my heirs under the table, I would be sorely tempted to deal in quantities less than 10,000 and have the bank file SARs (suspicious activity reports) on me on every transaction, just to avoid the inane hassles.

It is common knowledge, and I am sure Hastert knew this too, that banks are under the government's boot and that they file SARs on activities starting from far below the CTR limit of $10,000.

So Hastert, definitely, knew that SARs were being filed on him. If so, then how can we call that "structuring" in "attempt to avoid CTRs being filed" when he was surely aware that the bank filed SARs and the govt was informed what he was doing, he just did not care. This "structuring" has become a completely retarded concept when applied to people who know that SARs are filed. A very stretchy law that can be applied to a lot of situations.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus4936

A very stretchy law that can be

I can almost see requiring the banks to report suspicious transactions, but as far as I am concerned you ought to be able to withdraw any amount you want and as often as you want.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

I suggest that you read this and only then form your opinion.

formatting link

i
Reply to
Ignoramus4936

That is what the law allows. Your bank may try to talk you out of it because they prefer not to do the paperwork and because cash withdrawals cost them money.

Reply to
jim

Hastert may be suffering from senility or dementia.

Hastert could have very easily hired a lawyer to structure a settlement which would have included a confidentiality clause and non disclosure agreement. Pay the money with a check and it all would have been perfectly legal.

Best Regards Tom.

Reply to
Howard Beal

If I was in Hastert's place, I would just disclose the sordid past episode (as a fact, or as an accusation under dispute) and refuse to pay. A gay pedophile "pro-family" Republican is hardly news these days, and the story would be forgotten in a month or two with barely any consequence. Maybe he would lose some business, but who cares, it is better than being blackmailed.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus4936

We don't have all the facts. Perhaps Hastert is still an active pedophile which is why he paid hush money. Expect more alligations and lawsuits from people claiming to have been abused by Hastert. Evidence aquired in a civil lawsuit can be used in a future criminal prosecution. I believe illinios extended thier statute of limitations for sex abuse to 20 years in

2014.

Best Regards Tom.

Reply to
Howard Beal

I did read it, and still have the same opinion. It is similar to a law tha t says if you commit a crime , you have to report it to the police. Ie, s elf incrimination.

The Constitution grants this right quite simply: "[No person]...shall be co mpelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." However, a s with most other constitutional rights, it is subject to interpretation by the courts and often inspires fierce debate.

- See more at:

formatting link

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

And I still say that random drug/alcohol/STD tests for all gov't workers would clear up many of the problems within a year.

(zero tolerance on the drugs and STDs, legal limit on the alky)

Reply to
Larry Jaques

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.