• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Patriot Act pays off

A

Anonymous

Guest
Goodpasture said:
We got Gov Spitzer that way, right?

Your probably right...It sounds like the new bank money transfer reporting laws under the Patriot Act is what tipped the IRS to start looking- which led to the Emporer Clubs false front company and then old Spitzer....

Anyway thats the story they are leaking....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Wednesday, March 12, 2008



Spitzer Was Not Done In By The Patriot Act [Andy McCarthy]


This is the latest canard making the rounds — I heard a radio talk-show guy say it this morning, and one of the endless stream of former federal prosecutors suggested it on MSNBC last night (I had switched channels following Jeffrey Toobin's botched explanation of the money-laundering offense known as "structuring" — the cash transaction amount that triggers the reporting requirement is $10K, not, as Toobin stated, $5K.)

Currency transaction reporting requirements were enacted in the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and money laundering was made a crime in overhaul of the federal narcotics laws that took place in 1986. Believe it or not, Karl Rove did not diabolically dream these provisions up to trap unwary Democrats, nor are they part of George W. Bush's post-9/11 Politics of Fear.

Long before we had an international terrorism problem, these laws were developed to target domestic criminal enterprises (especially organized crime and drug trafficking). The biggest problem many of these syndicates have is hiding the mountains of cash they generate — unexplained wealth being among the best indicators of criminal activity, especially when it comes to the highest-ranking, most insulated crooks. To the extent these laws (and the Treasury Department's implementing regulations) have been beefed up significantly, a lot of that happened during the Clinton administration. (This Treasury Department publication lays out much of the history.)


03/12 05:12 PM
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If he had been using the $100/pop whores like the rest of us do, he wouldn't be in the pickle he's in - but no, he's got to be better than everybody else and use the $5000 whores. I think this is an example of the elitism and how out of touch with reality our politicians have become.

:wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
If he had been using the $100/pop whores like the rest of us do, he wouldn't be in the pickle he's in - but no, he's got to be better than everybody else and use the $5000 whores. I think this is an example of the elitism and how out of touch with reality our politicians have become.

:wink:

Speak for yourself! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plus, he moved her across state lines, for a direct violation of the Mann Act.......

USE THOSE HOME TOWN GIRLS!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
If he had been using the $100/pop whores like the rest of us do, he wouldn't be in the pickle he's in - but no, he's got to be better than everybody else and use the $5000 whores. I think this is an example of the elitism and how out of touch with reality our politicians have become.

:wink:

Speak for yourself! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plus, he moved her across state lines, for a direct violation of the Mann Act.......

USE THOSE HOME TOWN GIRLS!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

$5000..... just think of what a group of sailors could of done with that at a port of call in Thailand or Marines crossing the border to Tijuana. How many crack whores in his own constituancy could he have provided with their daily rock, but noooo this selfish btard spends lavishly on himself!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Actually it was the Patriot Act...The Money Laundering and Banking Laws have been in effect for many years and used for many years especially against drug dealers....But the Patriot Act amended those laws, and greatly expanded them in many ways including that of Banks verifying the accounts of where money is being put-- which according to the leaks has been identified as a false company which set off the alarm.....

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III
Title III of the Act, titled "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," is intended to facilitate the prevention, detection and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It primarily amends portions of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). It is divided into three subtitles, with the first dealing primarily with strengthening banking rules specifically against money laundering, especially on the international stage. The second attempts to improve communication between law enforcement agencies and financial institutions. This subtitle also increases record keeping and reporting requirements. The third subtitle deals with currency smuggling and counterfeiting, including quadrupling the maximum penalty for counterfeiting foreign currency, such as the Hans Vierck case of 2001.

The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of transactions processed from areas of the world where money laundering is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made institutions put into place reasonable steps to identify beneficial owners of bank accounts and those who are authorized to use or route funds through payable-through accounts.[64] The U.S. Treasury was charged with formulating regulations designed to foster information sharing between financial institutions in order to prevent money-laundering.[65] Along with expanding record keeping requirements it put new regulations into place to make it easier for authorities to identify money laundering activities and to make it harder for money launderers to mask their identities.[66] If money laundering was uncovered, the subtitle legislated for the forfeiture of assets of those suspected of doing the money laundering.[67] In an effort to encourage institutions to do their bit to reduce money laundering, the Treasury was given authority to block mergers of bank holding companies and banks with other banks and bank holding companies that had a bad history of preventing money laundering. Similarly, mergers between insured depository institutions and non-insured depository institutions that have a bad track record in combating money-laundering could be blocked.[68]

Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. Foreign shell banks that are not an affiliate of a bank that has a physical presence in the U.S. or that are not subject to supervision by a banking authority in a non-U.S. country were prohibited. The subtitle has several sections that prohibit or restrict the use of certain accounts held at financial institutions.[69] Financial institutions must now undertake steps to identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S. who have a correspondent account with them, along with the interests of each of the owners in the bank. It is expected that additional scrutiny will be applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make sure they are not engaging in money laundering. Banks must identify all the nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account opened and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens. There is also an expectation that they must undertake enhanced scrutiny of the account if it is owned by, or is being maintained on behalf of, any senior political figure where there is reasonable suspicion of corruption.[70] Any deposits made from within the U.S. into foreign banks are now deemed to have been deposited into any interbank account the foreign bank may have in the U.S. Thus any restraining order, seizure warrant or arrest warrant may be made against the funds in the interbank account held at a U.S. financial institution, up to the amount deposited in the account at the foreign bank.[71] Restrictions were placed on the use of internal bank concentration accounts because such accounts do not provide an effective audit trail for transactions, and this may be used to facilitate money laundering. Financial institutions are prohibited from allowing clients to specifically direct them to move funds into, out of, or through a concentration account, and they are also prohibited from informing their clients about the existence of such accounts. Financial institutions are not allowed to provide any information to clients that may identify such internal accounts.[72] Financial institutions are required to document and follow methods of identifying where the funds are for each customer in a concentration account that co-mingles funds belonging to one or more customers.

The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a crime of violence;[73] the bribery of public officials and fraudulent dealing with public funds; the smuggling or illegal export of controlled munitions[74] and the importation or bringing in of any firearm or ammunition not authorised by the U.S. Attorney General[75] and the smuggling of any item controlled under the Export Administration Regulations.[76][77] It also includes any offense where the U.S. would be obligated under a mutual treaty with a foreign nation to extradite a person, or where the U.S. would need to submit a case against a person for prosecution due to the treaty; the import of falsely classified goods;[78] computer crime;[79] and any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.[77] It also allows the forfeiture of any property within the jurisdiction of the United States that was gained as the result of an offense against a foreign nation that involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance.[80] Foreign nations may now seek to have a forfeiture or judgement notification enforced by a district court of the United States.[81] This is done through new legislation that specifies how the U.S. government may apply for a restraining order[82] to preserve the availability of property which is subject to a foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgement.[83] In taking into consideration such an application, emphasis is placed on the ability of a foreign court to follow due process.[81] The Act also requires the Secretary of Treasury to take all reasonable steps to encourage foreign governments make it a requirement to include the name of the originator in wire transfer instructions sent to the United States and other countries, with the information to remain with the transfer from its origination until the point of disbursement.[84] The Secretary was also ordered to encourage international cooperation in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terrorist groups.[85]

The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to financial institutions who do not comply with an order to terminate any corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Treasury. The financial institution can be fined $US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit has expired.[71]

The second subtitle made a number of modifications to the BSA in an attempt to make it harder for money launderers to operate and easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money laundering operations. One amendment made to the BSA was to allow the designated officer or agency who receives suspicious activity reports to notify U.S. intelligence agencies.[86] A number of amendments were made to address issues related to record keeping and financial reporting. One measure was a new requirement that anyone who does business file a report for any coin and foreign currency receipts that are over US$10,000 and made it illegal to structure transactions in a manner that evades the BSA's reporting requirements.[87] To make it easier for authorities to regulate and investigate anti-money laundering operations Money Services Businesses (MSBs) — those who operate informal value transfer systems outside of the mainstream financial system — were included in the definition of a financial institution.[88] The BSA was amended to make it mandatory to report suspicious transactions and an attempt was made to make such reporting easier for financial institutions.[89] FinCEN was made a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury[90] and the creation of a secure network to be used by financial institutions to report suspicious transactions and to provide alerts of relevant suspicious activities was ordered.[91] Along with these reporting requirements, a considerable number of provisions relate to the prevention and prosecution of money-laundering.[92] Financial institutions were ordered to establish anti-money laundering programs and the BSA was amended to better define anti-money laundering strategy.[93] Also increased were civil and criminal penalties for money laundering and the introduction of penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and certain record-keeping requirements.[94] A number of other amendments to the BSA were made through subtitle B, including granting the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System power to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. Federal reserve bank and allowing the Board to delegate this authority to U.S. Federal reserve banks.[95] Another measure instructed United States Executive Directors of international financial institutions to use their voice and vote to support any country that has taken action to support the U.S.'s War on Terrorism. Executive Directors are now required to provide ongoing auditing of disbursements made from their institutions to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.[96]

The third subtitle deals with currency crimes. Largely due to the effectiveness of the BSA, money launders had been avoiding traditional financial institutions to launder money and were using cash-based businesses to avoid them. A new effort was made to stop the laundering of money through bulk currency movements, mainly focusing on the confiscation of criminal proceeds and the increase in penalties for money laundering. Congress found that a criminal offense of merely evading the reporting of money transfers was insufficient and decided that it would be better if the smuggling of the bulk currency itself was the offense. Therefore, the BSA was amended to make it a criminal offense to evade currency reporting by concealing more than US$10,000 on any person or through any luggage, merchandise or other container that moves into or out of the U.S. The penalty for such an offense is up to 5 years imprisonment and the forfeiture of any property up to the amount that was being smuggled.[97] It also made the civil and criminal penalty violations of currency reporting cases[98] be the forfeiture of all a defendant's property that was involved in the offense, and any property traceable to the defendant.[99] The Act prohibits and penalizes those who run unlicensed money transmitting businesses.[100] In 2005, this provision of Patriot Act was used to prosecute Yehuda Abraham for helping to arrange money transfers for British arms dealer Hermant Lakhani, who was arrested in August 2003 after being caught in a government sting. Lakhani had tried to sell a missile to an FBI agent posing as a Somali militant.[101] The definition of counterfeiting was expanded to encompass analog, digital or electronic image reproductions, and it was made an offense to own such a reproduction device. Penalties were increased to 20 years imprisonment.[102] Money laundering "unlawful activities" was expanded to include the provision of material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.[103] The Act specifies that anyone who commits or conspires to undertake a fraudulent activity outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and which would be an offense in the U.S., will be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1029, which deals with fraud and related activity in connection with access ­devices.[104]
 

Mike

Well-known member
The point is that he would have probably gotten caught with, or without the Patriot Act amendments.

Breaking down bank tranfers to appear to dodge the $10,000.00 cash requirements will get you every time.

Spitzer should have known the rules either way.

Who really cares if the Patriot Act caught him?

The banking rules for SARS.........."Suspicious Activity Reports":

http://www.occ.treas.gov/sar.htm

_____________________________________________________

Experts say "Client 9" could face the following charges:

* Money laundering for trying to conceal the source and recipient of financial transactions.
* Tax evasion, if he was a knowing party to an all-cash business that wasn't filing taxes.
* Violation of the Mann Act for paying for the trip from New York to D.C. by the call girl known as "Kristen."
* Misuse of state resources, if he used his state-issued credit card for hotels or meals with prostitutes as well as if he was being protected by State Troopers during his dalliances.
* And finally, soliciting prostitution.

There's also the question of whether Spitzer used campaign funds for these trysts, which opens up a whole other litany of charges from fraud to federal election violations.

Court documents and published reports indicate perhaps as much as $80,000 were transferred from Spitzer's account to a trio of dummy companies that were fronts for the escort service.

North Fork Bank reportedly grew suspicious when the governor asked that his name be taken off the latest transactions.

The prostitution charge carries the least severe possible sentence. Ironically, one of the first bills Spitzer signed into law raised the penalties for Johns, the men who patronize prostitutes, from a maximum of three months, to now up to a year in jail. Money laundering has a maximum of 20 years.
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sptizer had made sooooo many enemies in BIG BUSINESS aka Bush Inc., that you bet they used the Pat. Act to their advantage to nap him



The Mann Act is a piece of crap !

Just another piece of legislation by ' the Puritans' of our world. Congress has no business in that business.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
The Mann Act is a piece of crap !

Just another piece of legislation by ' the Puritans' of our world. Congress has no business in that business.

I agree on the Mann Act--I don't think its been used in years...

I know the last case I was involved in that charged several pimps/madams with bringing prostitutes in from Minneapolis- they were charged with felony state laws-promoting prostitution and drugs charges- but the Feds wouldn't even consider the Mann Act...
If they use it this time- it will just be as a political vendetta- which its been used for at times in the past....

Probably half the guys in this country could be charged with transporting a girl across state lines for immoral purposes if the broad interpretation this has was used....
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
kolanuraven said:
The Mann Act is a piece of crap !

Just another piece of legislation by ' the Puritans' of our world. Congress has no business in that business.

I agree on the Mann Act--I don't think its been used in years...

I know the last case I was involved in that charged several pimps/madams with bringing prostitutes in from Minneapolis- they were charged with felony state laws-promoting prostitution and drugs charges- but the Feds wouldn't even consider the Mann Act...
If they use it this time- it will just be as a political vendetta- which its been used for at times in the past....

Probably half the guys in this country could be charged with transporting a girl across state lines for immoral purposes if the broad intrepetation this has was used....


I know the Mann Act was used against Chalie Chaplin....but I don't think anyone has ever actually ' served time' under the Act.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sptizer had made sooooo many enemies in BIG BUSINESS aka Bush Inc., that you bet they used the Pat. Act to their advantage to nap him



The Mann Act is a piece of crap !

Just another piece of legislation by ' the Puritans' of our world. Congress has no business in that business.

How about a concept unknown to liberals; PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
Oldtimer said:
kolanuraven said:
The Mann Act is a piece of crap !

Just another piece of legislation by ' the Puritans' of our world. Congress has no business in that business.

I agree on the Mann Act--I don't think its been used in years...

I know the last case I was involved in that charged several pimps/madams with bringing prostitutes in from Minneapolis- they were charged with felony state laws-promoting prostitution and drugs charges- but the Feds wouldn't even consider the Mann Act...
If they use it this time- it will just be as a political vendetta- which its been used for at times in the past....

Probably half the guys in this country could be charged with transporting a girl across state lines for immoral purposes if the broad intrepetation this has was used....


I know the Mann Act was used against Chalie Chaplin....but I don't think anyone has ever actually ' served time' under the Act.

The only one I can think of was Jack Johnson, the first "black" heavyweight boxing champion who was convicted and spent a year in Leavenworth for sending his "white" girlfriend a train ticket for her to come from Pittsburgh to Chicago to visit him. :shock: :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Chuck Berry, the singer, spent time on a Mann Act conviction for bringing in a 14 year old girl from Mexico.

Most of the modern day "Sex Slave" convictions, especially for minors/children are being convicted under the Act.

If anything is immoral, it is the trafficking of children for sex.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Probably half the guys in this country could be charged with transporting a girl across state lines for immoral purposes if the broad intrepetation this has was used....
rof.gif
rof.gif
rof.gif
rof.gif
rof.gif



TheDog.gif
 
Top