Money into the US
Jul 2nd 2001, 1:25 pm
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
[snip]
>
If the total of the wire transfers was $10K or more, that is the *definition* of
structuring, regardless of whether you did it to avoid filing Customs Form 4790 or a
CTR. Additionally, this *may have* triggered the filing of a SAR by your bank. I
don't know how to find out if a SAR was filed. FOIA request, I guess.
For a structuring indictment to be handed down, no criminal intent need be
demonstrated.
Dave 'I am not a money launderer and this is not advice for money launderers.'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
[snip]
>
If the total of the wire transfers was $10K or more, that is the *definition* of
structuring, regardless of whether you did it to avoid filing Customs Form 4790 or a
CTR. Additionally, this *may have* triggered the filing of a SAR by your bank. I
don't know how to find out if a SAR was filed. FOIA request, I guess.
For a structuring indictment to be handed down, no criminal intent need be
demonstrated.
Dave 'I am not a money launderer and this is not advice for money launderers.'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jul 2nd 2001, 2:20 pm
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
[usenetquote2]> > Don't be deluded that you are entering a free country. 'What bankers should look[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > for' --turning bankers into KGB informants:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > http://www.occ.treas.gov/launder/orige.htm Y2K-related crap, but very relevant to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > this discussion --NO CRIMINAL[/usenetquote2]
INTENT
[usenetquote2]> > NECESSARY FOR PROSECUTION FOR STRUCTURING:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > http://www.the-moneychanger.com/html..._mistakes.html 'Without proper and[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > centralized guidelines, federal prosecutors have[/usenetquote2]
become
[usenetquote2]> > indiscriminate in their "crackdown" characterizing many traditional, ordinary,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > routine, banking or business transactions as "structuring" or "money laundering.'[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > http://www.pixi.com/~itmc/ActionsbyAACLJ.html[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
I agree; the risk of being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated (and hit
with the fine) for committing the federal crime known as 'structuring' is probably
somewhat remote. So what? It's still a federal crime that carries stiff penalties
upon conviction and therefore it would be insane to commit it.
>
Structuring transactions to avoid CTR requirements is a crime. A person is subject to
five years in a federal prison upon conviction. My stance has validity,
unfortunately.
>
I'm not talking about what will 'work' or won't 'work' -- I'm talking about
structuring -- which is a crime -- and the threat of asset seizure (they DO this
at airports:
Sure, robbing a bank may 'work' -- you'll probably get a lot of money if you do it --
but I certainly wouldn't be telling people to rob banks!
>
I don't think it's 'concrete and helpful' to advise people to commit federal crimes
which carry heave fines and prison time.
>
>
>
>
By simply *declaring* the money upon arrival, without structuring the funds transfer
to avoid CTR requirements (or for any other reason, as that's illegal.)
If you have under ten grand, then you don't have to declare it. If you have more then
ten grand, then you do -- and if you structure the transactions by breaking up the
amounts to be under ten grand, then you've committed structuring and you can be sent
to prison and fined.
If you are bringing *anything* into the US which even *remotely* resembles 'money,'
the aggregate value of which equals or exceeds ten grand (cashiers check,
travellers check, whatever -- signed or unsigned, made out to yourself or anyone
else) show it to the SS guard at the border and pray that the officer has
integrity. That's what I would do.
>
You're welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Don't be deluded that you are entering a free country. 'What bankers should look[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > for' --turning bankers into KGB informants:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > http://www.occ.treas.gov/launder/orige.htm Y2K-related crap, but very relevant to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > this discussion --NO CRIMINAL[/usenetquote2]
INTENT
[usenetquote2]> > NECESSARY FOR PROSECUTION FOR STRUCTURING:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > http://www.the-moneychanger.com/html..._mistakes.html 'Without proper and[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > centralized guidelines, federal prosecutors have[/usenetquote2]
become
[usenetquote2]> > indiscriminate in their "crackdown" characterizing many traditional, ordinary,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > routine, banking or business transactions as "structuring" or "money laundering.'[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > http://www.pixi.com/~itmc/ActionsbyAACLJ.html[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
I agree; the risk of being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated (and hit
with the fine) for committing the federal crime known as 'structuring' is probably
somewhat remote. So what? It's still a federal crime that carries stiff penalties
upon conviction and therefore it would be insane to commit it.
>
Structuring transactions to avoid CTR requirements is a crime. A person is subject to
five years in a federal prison upon conviction. My stance has validity,
unfortunately.
>
I'm not talking about what will 'work' or won't 'work' -- I'm talking about
structuring -- which is a crime -- and the threat of asset seizure (they DO this
at airports:
Sure, robbing a bank may 'work' -- you'll probably get a lot of money if you do it --
but I certainly wouldn't be telling people to rob banks!
>
I don't think it's 'concrete and helpful' to advise people to commit federal crimes
which carry heave fines and prison time.
>
>
>
>
By simply *declaring* the money upon arrival, without structuring the funds transfer
to avoid CTR requirements (or for any other reason, as that's illegal.)
If you have under ten grand, then you don't have to declare it. If you have more then
ten grand, then you do -- and if you structure the transactions by breaking up the
amounts to be under ten grand, then you've committed structuring and you can be sent
to prison and fined.
If you are bringing *anything* into the US which even *remotely* resembles 'money,'
the aggregate value of which equals or exceeds ten grand (cashiers check,
travellers check, whatever -- signed or unsigned, made out to yourself or anyone
else) show it to the SS guard at the border and pray that the officer has
integrity. That's what I would do.
>
You're welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jul 2nd 2001, 2:23 pm
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
[usenetquote2]> > So... Customs is saying 'monetary instruments' include 'travelers[/usenetquote2]
checks'
[usenetquote2]> > and 'monetary instruments' DO NOT include 'travelers checks.'[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
person
>
>
>
Yeah, in theory there's a distinction based on who or what the thing's made-out to
and whether or not it's signed. In reality, the border guards have ultimate and
arbitrary discretion in deciding what is and is not 'money.'
>
>
>
Good luck if you try this.
>
>
>
>
>
This is rational advice.
>
Bet you anything you're right; however, I would not want to gamble with US Customs.
They have been known to do some rather - shall we say - peculiar things. The victim
has little or no recourse. And so, it's always better to be safe rather than sorry
where the Federales are concerned.
>
>
success
>
Perhaps; however, the real focus should be on her encouraging people to commit the
federal crime of 'structuring.'
>
>
This isn't about taxes, it's about civil asset forfeiture and criminal prosecution
for structuring. These are serious threats to anyone trying to move funds for
legitimate purposes. No criminal intent or awareness of the relevant laws is
necessary to secure a conviction.
>
checks'
[usenetquote2]> > and 'monetary instruments' DO NOT include 'travelers checks.'[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
person
>
>
>
Yeah, in theory there's a distinction based on who or what the thing's made-out to
and whether or not it's signed. In reality, the border guards have ultimate and
arbitrary discretion in deciding what is and is not 'money.'
>
>
>
Good luck if you try this.
>
>
>
>
>
This is rational advice.
>
Bet you anything you're right; however, I would not want to gamble with US Customs.
They have been known to do some rather - shall we say - peculiar things. The victim
has little or no recourse. And so, it's always better to be safe rather than sorry
where the Federales are concerned.
>
>
success
>
Perhaps; however, the real focus should be on her encouraging people to commit the
federal crime of 'structuring.'
>
>
This isn't about taxes, it's about civil asset forfeiture and criminal prosecution
for structuring. These are serious threats to anyone trying to move funds for
legitimate purposes. No criminal intent or awareness of the relevant laws is
necessary to secure a conviction.
>
Jul 2nd 2001, 3:54 pm
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
>
[usenetquote2]> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > This is known as "structuring," a federal crime punishable by up to 5[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > years[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > in federal prison.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most ISPs.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
Dave, like many, you are severely mis-representing the intent and extent of the
government's interest in personal money transactions. The way you talk is reminiscent
of those that believe the government is listening in on cell phone calls and
eaves-drops on email routinely. As if the federal government could give two shits
whether someone transfers some of their own money. Sure if you're routinely
transferring 10's of thousands of dollars in a fiscal month or quarter I could see
that they might take an interest, but if you are simply moving your funds from the
country you were previously resident in to the one you will now be resident in, they
simply do not care, so long as you spend it here. As for the legal definition of
"structuring" I think you are missing the spirit of the law and merely interpreting
the letter of one part of it.
--
The Highlander
----------------------
At the time of the Gathering, they said there can be only ONE! The secret is that the
one can choose his mate, The Highlander has chosen his Highland Belle, There can be
only ONE(of her)!
>
[usenetquote2]> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > This is known as "structuring," a federal crime punishable by up to 5[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > years[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > in federal prison.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most ISPs.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
Dave, like many, you are severely mis-representing the intent and extent of the
government's interest in personal money transactions. The way you talk is reminiscent
of those that believe the government is listening in on cell phone calls and
eaves-drops on email routinely. As if the federal government could give two shits
whether someone transfers some of their own money. Sure if you're routinely
transferring 10's of thousands of dollars in a fiscal month or quarter I could see
that they might take an interest, but if you are simply moving your funds from the
country you were previously resident in to the one you will now be resident in, they
simply do not care, so long as you spend it here. As for the legal definition of
"structuring" I think you are missing the spirit of the law and merely interpreting
the letter of one part of it.
--
The Highlander
----------------------
At the time of the Gathering, they said there can be only ONE! The secret is that the
one can choose his mate, The Highlander has chosen his Highland Belle, There can be
only ONE(of her)!
Jul 2nd 2001, 5:25 pm
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sounds like I need Grandpa's socks and coffee cans!!!
tim.........
tim.........
Jul 2nd 2001, 5:42 pm
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
[usenetquote2]> > "The Highlander" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > This is known as "structuring," a federal crime punishable by up to[/usenetquote2]
5
[usenetquote2]> > > years[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > in federal prison.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most ISPs.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > You people are grossly mis-informed about federal money-laundering laws.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
of
>
I'll take your word for it.
>
>
cell
>
Not at all. The way I talk is the way a person would talk if Alvena told me to rob a
bank. I would point-out that robbing banks is illegal, just as I did when she advised
someone to commit structuring violations.
>
>
Sure
>
>
>
>
long
>
Ok. Why don't you just do what you feel is best and I will too, and we'll let
everyone else reading this do the same (especially those from outside the US who are
coming here and think they are migrating to a 'free' country.)
>
>
of
>
I think you are unaware of the very real terror that has been inflicted on innocent
folks who got caught-up in the world wide web of US money laundering laws. You can
live with a false sense of security if you want, but please don't lull others into
your stupor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > "The Highlander" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > This is known as "structuring," a federal crime punishable by up to[/usenetquote2]
5
[usenetquote2]> > > years[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > in federal prison.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most ISPs.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > You people are grossly mis-informed about federal money-laundering laws.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
of
>
I'll take your word for it.
>
>
cell
>
Not at all. The way I talk is the way a person would talk if Alvena told me to rob a
bank. I would point-out that robbing banks is illegal, just as I did when she advised
someone to commit structuring violations.
>
>
Sure
>
>
>
>
long
>
Ok. Why don't you just do what you feel is best and I will too, and we'll let
everyone else reading this do the same (especially those from outside the US who are
coming here and think they are migrating to a 'free' country.)
>
>
of
>
I think you are unaware of the very real terror that has been inflicted on innocent
folks who got caught-up in the world wide web of US money laundering laws. You can
live with a false sense of security if you want, but please don't lull others into
your stupor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jul 2nd 2001, 11:30 pm
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
[usenetquote2]> > If you have money to bring into the U.S., you should either (1) have it wired[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > over, in any amount, or (2) carry a check (cashiers or otherwise), made out to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > yourself, of any amount, but NOT endorsed. Once you arrive[/usenetquote2]
in
[usenetquote2]> > the U.S. show Customs your check. Ask them if you need to fill out a declaration[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > (this IS the proper time to declare it - they won't accuse[/usenetquote2]
you
[usenetquote2]> > of trying to hide anything!!!)[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Bet you anything that they'll say no, you don't need to declare it,[/usenetquote2]
>
>
US
>
What the heck are you talking about? How is anyone gambling with U.S. Customs by
declaring the check they are carrying at the time they're supposed to declare it?
Paulgani
[usenetquote2]> > over, in any amount, or (2) carry a check (cashiers or otherwise), made out to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > yourself, of any amount, but NOT endorsed. Once you arrive[/usenetquote2]
in
[usenetquote2]> > the U.S. show Customs your check. Ask them if you need to fill out a declaration[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > (this IS the proper time to declare it - they won't accuse[/usenetquote2]
you
[usenetquote2]> > of trying to hide anything!!!)[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Bet you anything that they'll say no, you don't need to declare it,[/usenetquote2]
>
>
US
>
What the heck are you talking about? How is anyone gambling with U.S. Customs by
declaring the check they are carrying at the time they're supposed to declare it?
Paulgani
Jul 2nd 2001, 11:52 pm
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey, I don't know why everyone's jumping this guy so badly --- what he's saying is
true. There is a law known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which must track ANY transaction
larger than $10,000, and requires that a CTR (currency transaction report) be filed
with the federal government. If someone is breaking up money to avoid the BSA, it is
considered a federal crime.
I found this out by doing a search on "money laundering" and "structuring" on Yahoo.
>
>
>
Alvena did, in all fairness, instruct a person that he/she could avoid the CTR by
breaking up the money into chunks of less than $10,000. That, indeed, is a federal
crime. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
These laws are not put into place to catch everyday citizens -- they are intended for
drug dealers and casino owners (to name a few) -- but that doesn't mean that those
laws never affect anyone but the people for which they were intended. We can all
relate to horrible stories of everyday people who are prosecuted under a law that was
not meant for them, but it HAPPENS!
Here are a few of articles that I found:
http://www.state.gov/www/global/narc...ort/money.html
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/casinoml.htm --> this one explains different kinds of
money laundering, including the definition that the money does not have to come from
illegal activity http://members.aol.com/AJBRJJ/emerg.html
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > "Alvena Ferreira" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > Judy wrote:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > > Does anyone know if there is a limit to how much money you can[/usenetquote2]
bring
[usenetquote2]> > in[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > undeclared[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > See this link: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/travel/travel.htm Pan down to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > the link "moving to the United States" (middle section,[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > side)[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > According to what I read at the above link, you must declare over $10,000.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > There are 2 ways around this:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > Hmm....[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > 1. wire the money ahead of time to your fiance's/spouse's bank[/usenetquote2]
account
[usenetquote2]> > > > in chunks of under $10,000 each time and it will not be reported to[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > > IRS (by law the banks must report over $10,000)[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > This is known as "structuring," a federal crime punishable by up to 5[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > years[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > in federal prison.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most ISPs.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
true. There is a law known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which must track ANY transaction
larger than $10,000, and requires that a CTR (currency transaction report) be filed
with the federal government. If someone is breaking up money to avoid the BSA, it is
considered a federal crime.
I found this out by doing a search on "money laundering" and "structuring" on Yahoo.
>
>
>
Alvena did, in all fairness, instruct a person that he/she could avoid the CTR by
breaking up the money into chunks of less than $10,000. That, indeed, is a federal
crime. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
These laws are not put into place to catch everyday citizens -- they are intended for
drug dealers and casino owners (to name a few) -- but that doesn't mean that those
laws never affect anyone but the people for which they were intended. We can all
relate to horrible stories of everyday people who are prosecuted under a law that was
not meant for them, but it HAPPENS!
Here are a few of articles that I found:
http://www.state.gov/www/global/narc...ort/money.html
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/casinoml.htm --> this one explains different kinds of
money laundering, including the definition that the money does not have to come from
illegal activity http://members.aol.com/AJBRJJ/emerg.html
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > "Alvena Ferreira" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > Judy wrote:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > > Does anyone know if there is a limit to how much money you can[/usenetquote2]
bring
[usenetquote2]> > in[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > undeclared[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > See this link: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/travel/travel.htm Pan down to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > the link "moving to the United States" (middle section,[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > side)[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > According to what I read at the above link, you must declare over $10,000.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > There are 2 ways around this:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > Hmm....[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > 1. wire the money ahead of time to your fiance's/spouse's bank[/usenetquote2]
account
[usenetquote2]> > > > in chunks of under $10,000 each time and it will not be reported to[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > > IRS (by law the banks must report over $10,000)[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > This is known as "structuring," a federal crime punishable by up to 5[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > years[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > in federal prison.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most ISPs.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own name[/usenetquote2]
or
[usenetquote2]> > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
>
>
Jul 3rd 2001, 12:57 am
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave wrote:
>
>
>
It's good to see that we agree on this point.
>
>
>
>
And you have made your point, probably several dozen times over. The advice that i
gave initially was given to me by my stockbroker, FWIW. I am willing to admit that
from a technical standpoint it appears that you have substance to your posts. But I
don't think that hammering it over and over again is fruitful to the original
poster's question. I don't usually block posts, but I think I shall make an exception
in your case. Thank you for your input, I feel edified.
As my original post stated, it was my personal opinion, and persons who read posts
here should always bear in mind that opinions may vary and may not be correct.
Alvena
===
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice; this is my personal opinion, posted
for the purpose of discussion only:
===
K-1 FAQ: http://www.k1faq.com Timelines: http://www.wkh.org/ A great K-1 Site:
http://pages.prodigy.net/alixtcat/immigrat.htm Marriage Visa Pages:
http://www.mindspring.com/~docsteen/...o/visainfo.htm
===
>
>
>
It's good to see that we agree on this point.
>
>
>
>
And you have made your point, probably several dozen times over. The advice that i
gave initially was given to me by my stockbroker, FWIW. I am willing to admit that
from a technical standpoint it appears that you have substance to your posts. But I
don't think that hammering it over and over again is fruitful to the original
poster's question. I don't usually block posts, but I think I shall make an exception
in your case. Thank you for your input, I feel edified.
As my original post stated, it was my personal opinion, and persons who read posts
here should always bear in mind that opinions may vary and may not be correct.
Alvena
===
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice; this is my personal opinion, posted
for the purpose of discussion only:
===
K-1 FAQ: http://www.k1faq.com Timelines: http://www.wkh.org/ A great K-1 Site:
http://pages.prodigy.net/alixtcat/immigrat.htm Marriage Visa Pages:
http://www.mindspring.com/~docsteen/...o/visainfo.htm
===
Jul 3rd 2001, 1:02 am
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
>
[usenetquote2]> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > "The Highlander" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most[/usenetquote2]
ISPs.
[usenetquote2]> > > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own[/usenetquote2]
name
[usenetquote2]> > or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > You people are grossly mis-informed about federal money-laundering[/usenetquote2]
laws.
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Dave, like many, you are severely mis-representing the intent and extent[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > the government's interest in personal money transactions.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
No need Dave, just re-read your own post on the topic with a little more objectivity.
[usenetquote2]> > The way you talk is reminiscent of those that believe the government is[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > listening in on[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > phone calls and eaves-drops on email routinely.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
me
>
>
Um, are you an ass or something? Are you not aware that *intent* is required to be
established in order to prove guilt in a criminal matter? If I transfer more than
$10K of my own money between accounts abroad and in the US, bringing the money into
the US, my intent is not structuring, rather it is the legitimate obtaining of my own
funds. It may be that on the face of it the transactions fit the legal description of
structuring, or laundering, however my intent is nothing of the sort.
I understand what you are saying Dave, you are saying that the letter of the law is
such that my money transfers may be seen as potentially being funds structuring or
laundering. However, unless I make a habit of it, few, if any, banks will bother to
report it, and few, if any, prosecutors would even bother to question it. I'm not
saying it's impossible, just very, very unlikely. But then if I were prosecuted I
could and would sue for wrongful prosecution.
Dave you seem to think that these laws are written and operated by morons intent on
catching honest citizens going about their legitimate personal business. While there
is always a small percentage of horror stories of an official making a mistake or
simply having a bad hair day it is misleading in the extreme to talk as you have done
about money transfers. You are scaring people quite un-necessarily and inflaming
response here.
[usenetquote2]> > As if the federal government could give two shits whether someone transfers some[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > of their own money.[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > if you're routinely transferring 10's of thousands of dollars in a[/usenetquote2]
fiscal
[usenetquote2]> > month or quarter I could see that they might take an interest, but if[/usenetquote2]
you
[usenetquote2]> > are simply moving your funds from the country you were previously[/usenetquote2]
resident
[usenetquote2]> > in to the one you will now be resident in, they simply do not care, so[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > as you spend it here.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
Oh, so you don't think that the US is a free country? By what standard? Compared to
what nations on Earth? Come on Dave, tell us more about your feelings about the USA.
Do you compare it to the totalitarian governments in eastern Europe, Africa and Asia?
Or the Fascist and repressive governments in other parts of the world, for example
Latin and south America, Africa and South East Asia? Perhaps you are comparing with
Western Europe? Or Canada? Japan? Australia?
Come on Dave, don't be so shy. You think the US isn't a free country? Lets hear
the reasons.
[usenetquote2]> > As for the legal definition of "structuring" I think you are missing the spirit[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > of the law and merely interpreting the letter of one part of it.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Neat phrase, which reactionbary Republican did you lift it from?
>
>
Well, you seem to be doing a pretty good job of scaring people with your overblown
fear of the US Gov. Tell me Dave, do you like in the backwoods of Missouri?
>
[usenetquote2]> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > "The Highlander" <[email protected]> wrote[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > Dave's post is known as "trolling", a TOSable offence with most[/usenetquote2]
ISPs.
[usenetquote2]> > > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > Transferring money between your own accounts, whether in your own[/usenetquote2]
name
[usenetquote2]> > or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > > jointly with your spouse is hardly "structuring".[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > You people are grossly mis-informed about federal money-laundering[/usenetquote2]
laws.
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Dave, like many, you are severely mis-representing the intent and extent[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > the government's interest in personal money transactions.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
No need Dave, just re-read your own post on the topic with a little more objectivity.
[usenetquote2]> > The way you talk is reminiscent of those that believe the government is[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > listening in on[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > phone calls and eaves-drops on email routinely.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
me
>
>
Um, are you an ass or something? Are you not aware that *intent* is required to be
established in order to prove guilt in a criminal matter? If I transfer more than
$10K of my own money between accounts abroad and in the US, bringing the money into
the US, my intent is not structuring, rather it is the legitimate obtaining of my own
funds. It may be that on the face of it the transactions fit the legal description of
structuring, or laundering, however my intent is nothing of the sort.
I understand what you are saying Dave, you are saying that the letter of the law is
such that my money transfers may be seen as potentially being funds structuring or
laundering. However, unless I make a habit of it, few, if any, banks will bother to
report it, and few, if any, prosecutors would even bother to question it. I'm not
saying it's impossible, just very, very unlikely. But then if I were prosecuted I
could and would sue for wrongful prosecution.
Dave you seem to think that these laws are written and operated by morons intent on
catching honest citizens going about their legitimate personal business. While there
is always a small percentage of horror stories of an official making a mistake or
simply having a bad hair day it is misleading in the extreme to talk as you have done
about money transfers. You are scaring people quite un-necessarily and inflaming
response here.
[usenetquote2]> > As if the federal government could give two shits whether someone transfers some[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > of their own money.[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > if you're routinely transferring 10's of thousands of dollars in a[/usenetquote2]
fiscal
[usenetquote2]> > month or quarter I could see that they might take an interest, but if[/usenetquote2]
you
[usenetquote2]> > are simply moving your funds from the country you were previously[/usenetquote2]
resident
[usenetquote2]> > in to the one you will now be resident in, they simply do not care, so[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > as you spend it here.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
Oh, so you don't think that the US is a free country? By what standard? Compared to
what nations on Earth? Come on Dave, tell us more about your feelings about the USA.
Do you compare it to the totalitarian governments in eastern Europe, Africa and Asia?
Or the Fascist and repressive governments in other parts of the world, for example
Latin and south America, Africa and South East Asia? Perhaps you are comparing with
Western Europe? Or Canada? Japan? Australia?
Come on Dave, don't be so shy. You think the US isn't a free country? Lets hear
the reasons.
[usenetquote2]> > As for the legal definition of "structuring" I think you are missing the spirit[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > of the law and merely interpreting the letter of one part of it.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Neat phrase, which reactionbary Republican did you lift it from?
>
>
Well, you seem to be doing a pretty good job of scaring people with your overblown
fear of the US Gov. Tell me Dave, do you like in the backwoods of Missouri?
Jul 3rd 2001, 1:11 am
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
>
[usenetquote2]> >do you have which may help the original poster? You seem rather well-versed on the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >subject. Exactly *how* would YOU suggest that an entering alien fiance or spouse[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >bring money into the country, legally, and without risk? (since this was the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >original question)[/usenetquote2]
>
>
funds
>
>
>
>
>
under
>
>
>
>
>
(cashiers
>
>
that
>
So, let me get this straight, you first of all tell everyone here that the US gov is
spying on you, to the extent that local banks will fill in reports on your financial
activities, and yet at the same time you are willing to trust that an employee of
that self same government will have integrity? You can't have it both ways. The basic
thrust of your argument is that the US government has designed laws to catch ordinary
citizens going about their legitimate personal business. You further assert that the
Government requires banks to do their dirty work. You inflate the likelihood of
structuring charges being brought against a person, and you characterize the US as a
non-free country. Then in the same breath, almost, you turn around and hope that a
point of entry customs officer will have integrity, presumable so the officer doesn't
confiscate something for no apparent reason. Wouldn't the customs officer be a direct
employee of the horrible US government who are intent on catching citizens in their
own business? Why would his personal integrity mean a thing in the scenario you
construct?
Dave, I think you need to stop and start again, this time applying some logic and
common sense to your argument.
>
[usenetquote2]> >do you have which may help the original poster? You seem rather well-versed on the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >subject. Exactly *how* would YOU suggest that an entering alien fiance or spouse[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >bring money into the country, legally, and without risk? (since this was the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >original question)[/usenetquote2]
>
>
funds
>
>
>
>
>
under
>
>
>
>
>
(cashiers
>
>
that
>
So, let me get this straight, you first of all tell everyone here that the US gov is
spying on you, to the extent that local banks will fill in reports on your financial
activities, and yet at the same time you are willing to trust that an employee of
that self same government will have integrity? You can't have it both ways. The basic
thrust of your argument is that the US government has designed laws to catch ordinary
citizens going about their legitimate personal business. You further assert that the
Government requires banks to do their dirty work. You inflate the likelihood of
structuring charges being brought against a person, and you characterize the US as a
non-free country. Then in the same breath, almost, you turn around and hope that a
point of entry customs officer will have integrity, presumable so the officer doesn't
confiscate something for no apparent reason. Wouldn't the customs officer be a direct
employee of the horrible US government who are intent on catching citizens in their
own business? Why would his personal integrity mean a thing in the scenario you
construct?
Dave, I think you need to stop and start again, this time applying some logic and
common sense to your argument.
Jul 3rd 2001, 1:34 am
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
(currency
>
CASH transaction larger than $10,000!!!!
NOT ANY transaction! CASH!
Banks must certainly keep RECORDS of transactions over $10,000 - actually, of ANY
size. But if they are NOT CASH, they DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPORTED TO THE GOVERNMENT!
Paulgani
>
>
(currency
>
CASH transaction larger than $10,000!!!!
NOT ANY transaction! CASH!
Banks must certainly keep RECORDS of transactions over $10,000 - actually, of ANY
size. But if they are NOT CASH, they DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPORTED TO THE GOVERNMENT!
Paulgani
Jul 3rd 2001, 1:53 am
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alvena, your original advice was:
1. wire the money ahead of time to your fiance's/spouse's bank account in chunks of
under $10,000 each time and it will not be reported to the IRS (by law the banks
must report over $10,000)
What you suggested was not structuring, because electronic (non-cash) transactions of
any size do NOT have to be reported to the government. The bank(s) only must maintain
RECORDS of the transactions for 5 years, as per the link you posted.
The only fault in your advice was that it would have been an unnecessary waste of
fees to make multiple small wires instead of one large one. Your advice did not in
any way commit the crime of structuring, as that applies to CASH transactions only.
Paulgani
>
[usenetquote2]> > I agree; the risk of being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and[/usenetquote2]
incarcerated
[usenetquote2]> > (and hit with the fine) for committing the federal crime known as 'structuring'[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > is probably somewhat remote.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I'm not talking about what will 'work' or won't 'work' -- I'm talking[/usenetquote2]
about
[usenetquote2]> > structuring -- which is a crime --[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
1. wire the money ahead of time to your fiance's/spouse's bank account in chunks of
under $10,000 each time and it will not be reported to the IRS (by law the banks
must report over $10,000)
What you suggested was not structuring, because electronic (non-cash) transactions of
any size do NOT have to be reported to the government. The bank(s) only must maintain
RECORDS of the transactions for 5 years, as per the link you posted.
The only fault in your advice was that it would have been an unnecessary waste of
fees to make multiple small wires instead of one large one. Your advice did not in
any way commit the crime of structuring, as that applies to CASH transactions only.
Paulgani
>
[usenetquote2]> > I agree; the risk of being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and[/usenetquote2]
incarcerated
[usenetquote2]> > (and hit with the fine) for committing the federal crime known as 'structuring'[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > is probably somewhat remote.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I'm not talking about what will 'work' or won't 'work' -- I'm talking[/usenetquote2]
about
[usenetquote2]> > structuring -- which is a crime --[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jul 3rd 2001, 2:54 am
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
If there is no intent, the person would not be making small transactions to try and
circumvent whatever rules. If a person is making the under 10K transactions, for that
very reason, it would be hard for them to prove otherwise.
So, as I said before, there is no need for any of this. Just transfer the money. All
at once. No penalties. Yeesh!
--
>
Steen's Visa Pages http://www.mindspring.com/~docsteen/...o/visainfo.htm
Newsgroup FAQ http://www.k1faq.com Immigration and Naturalization Service
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov {I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. For
reliable legal advice, please consult with a professional immigration attorney.}
circumvent whatever rules. If a person is making the under 10K transactions, for that
very reason, it would be hard for them to prove otherwise.
So, as I said before, there is no need for any of this. Just transfer the money. All
at once. No penalties. Yeesh!
--
>
Steen's Visa Pages http://www.mindspring.com/~docsteen/...o/visainfo.htm
Newsgroup FAQ http://www.k1faq.com Immigration and Naturalization Service
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov {I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. For
reliable legal advice, please consult with a professional immigration attorney.}
Jul 3rd 2001, 3:11 am
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
[snip]
>
Lemme guess. She also told you to buy Cisco at $80, right? Or maybe Priceline at
$110.
ROTFLMAO
If your stockbroker told you to rob a bank, would you pass that advice on, too?
>
>
Oh, bullshit, Alvena. Structuring is a crime. Just be woman enough to admit you were
wrong, and let's move on!
>
>
And I don't think telling them to commit federal crimes is fruitful to their
question, either! Why can't you just give a mea culpa? What is it, ego??
>
Why does that not surprise me? Oh, well. At least I won't risk getting any dangerous
advice from you. ROTFLMAO
>
Yeah. Sure. Now get along and keep spouting your 'advice' to those unfortunate enough
to take it.
>
>
I assume this is the closest we may expect to an admission of error and
retraction. How sad.
>
>
>
>
Touche.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lemme guess. She also told you to buy Cisco at $80, right? Or maybe Priceline at
$110.
ROTFLMAO
If your stockbroker told you to rob a bank, would you pass that advice on, too?
>
>
Oh, bullshit, Alvena. Structuring is a crime. Just be woman enough to admit you were
wrong, and let's move on!
>
>
And I don't think telling them to commit federal crimes is fruitful to their
question, either! Why can't you just give a mea culpa? What is it, ego??
>
Why does that not surprise me? Oh, well. At least I won't risk getting any dangerous
advice from you. ROTFLMAO
>
Yeah. Sure. Now get along and keep spouting your 'advice' to those unfortunate enough
to take it.
>
>
I assume this is the closest we may expect to an admission of error and
retraction. How sad.
>
>
>
>
Touche.
>
>
>
>
>
