Money into the US
Jul 3rd 2001, 3:16 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The
>
>
You are absolutely incorrect.
Wire transfers are the heart and soul of federal money-laundering/CTR/SAR laws.
You're encouraging people to commit federal crimes.
>
>
>
Let's pray to god no one takes your incredibly dangerous advice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The
>
>
You are absolutely incorrect.
Wire transfers are the heart and soul of federal money-laundering/CTR/SAR laws.
You're encouraging people to commit federal crimes.
>
>
>
Let's pray to god no one takes your incredibly dangerous advice.
>
Jul 3rd 2001, 3:38 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
[snip]
[usenetquote2]> > If you are bringing *anything* into the US which even *remotely*[/usenetquote2]
resembles
[usenetquote2]> > 'money,' the aggregate value of which equals or exceeds ten grand[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > check, travellers check, whatever -- signed or unsigned, made out to yourself or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > anyone else) show it to the SS guard at the border and pray[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > the officer has integrity. That's what I would do.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
reports
>
Are you saying that banks are not required by federal law to file Currency
Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports? Or are you just arguing for the
sake of arguing?
>
>
You
>
Huh? What'd I miss? Of course there are many government employees with integrity --
probably the majority of them.
Most mailmen deliver the mail without stealing it, most police officers walk their
beats without trampling anyone's civil rights, and most Customs officers stand there
and do what they're supposed to do (one even apologized to me at LAX for having to
ask so many questions. They're mostly decent folks earning a living.)
There are, however, bad apples in every organization. There are Customs officers who
will seize monetary instruments without just cause. It's rare (thank god.) But it has
happened. Doing whatever's necessary to avoid that risk is just common sense.
Anyway, the integrity or lack thereof of government employees has nothing to do with
the fact that Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports are filed
by banks (they have to file them -- and most of the time, they don't want to be
forced to assume this role as informers) -- and yes, the federal government monitors
accounts -- that's federal law. The law is well-intentioned (to prevent
money-laundering) -- however, innocents have been caught in its wide net.
I don't know why you dispute this. Perhaps you have an axe to grind that's not
grounded in reality?
>
>
That's simply not true. The basic thrust of my argument is that structuring is a
federal crime, and no one should commit it and no one should tell others to commit
it. The *reason* it's a federal crime is because money launderers use structuring to
avoid the filing of Currency Transaction Reports (which is precisely what Alvena told
the original poster to do) and structuring was made illegal to dissuade money
launderers from doing it.
Again, I have no idea why you are arguing about this. It's clear, it's factual --
it's simply the way it is. I think you're a person who just likes to debate. If so,
please move on and find another debating partner. Your arguments are irrational.
>
>
I assert this, huh? Okayyyyyy.
>
Actually, I have no idea what the likelihood is of being indicted for structuring (or
any other crime.) I do know that it's punishable by 5 years in prison and a heavy
fine if you are indicted, tried and convicted. I also know that it's happened to
innocents.
>
>
Are you just pissed-off that Gore lost the election, or what?
>
>
>
>
US
>
>
I can see by this point that you've just go too much time on your hands.
Look, fella. Go commit structuring if you want to, ok? Rob banks, murder people,
snatch purses, fish without a license -- do whatever the hell you want. Good
luck to you.
>
>
Yeah. I'll do that. Thanks for the advice.
[snip]
[usenetquote2]> > If you are bringing *anything* into the US which even *remotely*[/usenetquote2]
resembles
[usenetquote2]> > 'money,' the aggregate value of which equals or exceeds ten grand[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > check, travellers check, whatever -- signed or unsigned, made out to yourself or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > anyone else) show it to the SS guard at the border and pray[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > the officer has integrity. That's what I would do.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
reports
>
Are you saying that banks are not required by federal law to file Currency
Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports? Or are you just arguing for the
sake of arguing?
>
>
You
>
Huh? What'd I miss? Of course there are many government employees with integrity --
probably the majority of them.
Most mailmen deliver the mail without stealing it, most police officers walk their
beats without trampling anyone's civil rights, and most Customs officers stand there
and do what they're supposed to do (one even apologized to me at LAX for having to
ask so many questions. They're mostly decent folks earning a living.)
There are, however, bad apples in every organization. There are Customs officers who
will seize monetary instruments without just cause. It's rare (thank god.) But it has
happened. Doing whatever's necessary to avoid that risk is just common sense.
Anyway, the integrity or lack thereof of government employees has nothing to do with
the fact that Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports are filed
by banks (they have to file them -- and most of the time, they don't want to be
forced to assume this role as informers) -- and yes, the federal government monitors
accounts -- that's federal law. The law is well-intentioned (to prevent
money-laundering) -- however, innocents have been caught in its wide net.
I don't know why you dispute this. Perhaps you have an axe to grind that's not
grounded in reality?
>
>
That's simply not true. The basic thrust of my argument is that structuring is a
federal crime, and no one should commit it and no one should tell others to commit
it. The *reason* it's a federal crime is because money launderers use structuring to
avoid the filing of Currency Transaction Reports (which is precisely what Alvena told
the original poster to do) and structuring was made illegal to dissuade money
launderers from doing it.
Again, I have no idea why you are arguing about this. It's clear, it's factual --
it's simply the way it is. I think you're a person who just likes to debate. If so,
please move on and find another debating partner. Your arguments are irrational.
>
>
I assert this, huh? Okayyyyyy.
>
Actually, I have no idea what the likelihood is of being indicted for structuring (or
any other crime.) I do know that it's punishable by 5 years in prison and a heavy
fine if you are indicted, tried and convicted. I also know that it's happened to
innocents.
>
>
Are you just pissed-off that Gore lost the election, or what?
>
>
>
>
US
>
>
I can see by this point that you've just go too much time on your hands.
Look, fella. Go commit structuring if you want to, ok? Rob banks, murder people,
snatch purses, fish without a license -- do whatever the hell you want. Good
luck to you.
>
>
Yeah. I'll do that. Thanks for the advice.
Jul 3rd 2001, 4:06 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
I've been thinking about this too. I believe it's because Americans want to believe
that their country is still the land of the free and the home of the brave. They want
to believe so badly that their government is basically good and will not hurt them.
It's difficult to face the truth. It often hurts. And I think that's why my they
display such irrational emotion in their attacks. None of them can bear to admit the
obvious to themselves. It's too ugly and too scary.
>
I've been thinking about this too. I believe it's because Americans want to believe
that their country is still the land of the free and the home of the brave. They want
to believe so badly that their government is basically good and will not hurt them.
It's difficult to face the truth. It often hurts. And I think that's why my they
display such irrational emotion in their attacks. None of them can bear to admit the
obvious to themselves. It's too ugly and too scary.
Jul 3rd 2001, 4:09 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
[usenetquote2]> > Hey, I don't know why everyone's jumping this guy so badly --- what he's saying[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > is true. There is a law known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which[/usenetquote2]
must
[usenetquote2]> > track ANY transaction larger than $10,000, and requires that a CTR[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > transaction report) be filed with the federal government.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
All transactions are included in the CTR and SAR reporting requirements. Not
just cash.
Paugani is utterly incorrect on this point. Dangerously incorrect. I have no idea why
he keeps insisting that the sky is green. It's bizarre.
>
[usenetquote2]> > is true. There is a law known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which[/usenetquote2]
must
[usenetquote2]> > track ANY transaction larger than $10,000, and requires that a CTR[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > transaction report) be filed with the federal government.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
All transactions are included in the CTR and SAR reporting requirements. Not
just cash.
Paugani is utterly incorrect on this point. Dangerously incorrect. I have no idea why
he keeps insisting that the sky is green. It's bizarre.
>
Jul 3rd 2001, 4:40 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
[snip]
>
No, but you obviously are.
>
>
No criminal intent is required for a structuring conviction.
>
>
Your intent is irrelevant. If you do that, you are guilty of the federal crime known
as 'structuring' and subject, upon conviction, of up to 5 years in federal prison.
>
The source of the funds is also irrelevant to your prosecution for structuring in
that case.
>
>
laundering,
>
No relevant.
>
the
>
>
Structuring *is not* laundering. Structuring is the breaking-up of transactions
into chunks under $10,000 *for any reason* (not just to avoid the filing of CTRs.)
Laundering is the cleansing of illegally-obtained funds. They are totally
different things.
And yes, convictions have been obtained for structuring where *NO LAUNDERING TOOK
PLACE.* Many innocents have been caught-up in this web.
>
CTRs *must* be filed by banks for *all* transactions of $10,000 or more; SARs must be
filed for all 'suspicious' transactions -- which means that banks have discretion in
the filing of SARs but no discretion in the filing of CTRs.
You do make a good point about 'habit' -- in the Know Your Customer (KYC)
regulations, the software which scans transactions for 'suspicious' patterns does,
indeed, use your 'habits' as a basis to determine whether a particular transaction
or series of transactions is 'suspicious' (much like the software used by credit
card issuers to scan transactions to deter fraud -- if the software sniffs-out
'suspicious' actitivy on your account, it will disable the card, forcing you to
call-in for authorization before it will let a purchase go through; this has
happened to me twice when I made a coupe of large purchases that were out of the
norm for my 'habits.'
So... CTRs will be filed no matter what for transactions of $10K or more; SARs may be
filed, based on the neural-net software and the bank employee's discretion. But since
banks have been hit with heavy fines lately for failing to file SARs on what later
turned-out to be money launderers --and with the advent of ever-more-powerful
neural-net transaction-scanning software--- the banks have begun to take a
'better-safe-than-sorry' approach to the issue of filing SARs.
And no, CTRs and SARs are NOT just 'filed away' somewhere in DC -- they are added to
FinCEN's database, indexed, cross-indexed and stored FOREVER -- and god only knows
when they will be used in the future and for what purpose.
Has a Suspicious Transaction Report been filed on you? Do you know? Do you care? How
can you find out?
The fact that no one seems to know or care about this whole thing is profoundly
troubling to me.
>
>
You could be right. The chance of you being convicted for committing that particular
crime may be close to zero for all I know. But why take the risk by following
Alvena's very dangerous advice?
>
I see.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I see. Well, all I can say is, if you're feeling lucky today, then go ahead and wire
$12,000 in chunks smaller than $10,000 and watch what happens next.
Maybe nothing. Maybe something. I don't know. Are you feeling lucky today?
Well, are you?
>
>
>
in
>
>
and
>
>
It's more free than some countries, less free than others. Certainly less free than
it used to be, before the 'War on Drugs' was begun by Nixon in response to Johnson's
'War on Poverty.'
>
>
Sorry. Not taking your trollish bait. If you want to commit structuring (or bank
robbery, or any other crime) then go ahead. I wish you the best.
[usenetquote2]> > I think you are unaware of the very real terror that has been inflicted[/usenetquote2]
on
[usenetquote2]> > innocent folks who got caught-up in the world wide web[/usenetquote2]
>
>
I see. So you are angry that Gore lost the election. I guess that's really what this
all boils-down to.
[usenetquote2]> > of US money laundering laws. You can live with a false sense of security if you[/usenetquote2]
want,
[usenetquote2]> > but please don't lull others into your stupor.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
of
>
No. Why do ask? What are you trying to imply?
>
No, but you obviously are.
>
>
No criminal intent is required for a structuring conviction.
>
>
Your intent is irrelevant. If you do that, you are guilty of the federal crime known
as 'structuring' and subject, upon conviction, of up to 5 years in federal prison.
>
The source of the funds is also irrelevant to your prosecution for structuring in
that case.
>
>
laundering,
>
No relevant.
>
the
>
>
Structuring *is not* laundering. Structuring is the breaking-up of transactions
into chunks under $10,000 *for any reason* (not just to avoid the filing of CTRs.)
Laundering is the cleansing of illegally-obtained funds. They are totally
different things.
And yes, convictions have been obtained for structuring where *NO LAUNDERING TOOK
PLACE.* Many innocents have been caught-up in this web.
>
CTRs *must* be filed by banks for *all* transactions of $10,000 or more; SARs must be
filed for all 'suspicious' transactions -- which means that banks have discretion in
the filing of SARs but no discretion in the filing of CTRs.
You do make a good point about 'habit' -- in the Know Your Customer (KYC)
regulations, the software which scans transactions for 'suspicious' patterns does,
indeed, use your 'habits' as a basis to determine whether a particular transaction
or series of transactions is 'suspicious' (much like the software used by credit
card issuers to scan transactions to deter fraud -- if the software sniffs-out
'suspicious' actitivy on your account, it will disable the card, forcing you to
call-in for authorization before it will let a purchase go through; this has
happened to me twice when I made a coupe of large purchases that were out of the
norm for my 'habits.'
So... CTRs will be filed no matter what for transactions of $10K or more; SARs may be
filed, based on the neural-net software and the bank employee's discretion. But since
banks have been hit with heavy fines lately for failing to file SARs on what later
turned-out to be money launderers --and with the advent of ever-more-powerful
neural-net transaction-scanning software--- the banks have begun to take a
'better-safe-than-sorry' approach to the issue of filing SARs.
And no, CTRs and SARs are NOT just 'filed away' somewhere in DC -- they are added to
FinCEN's database, indexed, cross-indexed and stored FOREVER -- and god only knows
when they will be used in the future and for what purpose.
Has a Suspicious Transaction Report been filed on you? Do you know? Do you care? How
can you find out?
The fact that no one seems to know or care about this whole thing is profoundly
troubling to me.
>
>
You could be right. The chance of you being convicted for committing that particular
crime may be close to zero for all I know. But why take the risk by following
Alvena's very dangerous advice?
>
I see.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I see. Well, all I can say is, if you're feeling lucky today, then go ahead and wire
$12,000 in chunks smaller than $10,000 and watch what happens next.
Maybe nothing. Maybe something. I don't know. Are you feeling lucky today?
Well, are you?
>
>
>
in
>
>
and
>
>
It's more free than some countries, less free than others. Certainly less free than
it used to be, before the 'War on Drugs' was begun by Nixon in response to Johnson's
'War on Poverty.'
>
>
Sorry. Not taking your trollish bait. If you want to commit structuring (or bank
robbery, or any other crime) then go ahead. I wish you the best.
[usenetquote2]> > I think you are unaware of the very real terror that has been inflicted[/usenetquote2]
on
[usenetquote2]> > innocent folks who got caught-up in the world wide web[/usenetquote2]
>
>
I see. So you are angry that Gore lost the election. I guess that's really what this
all boils-down to.
[usenetquote2]> > of US money laundering laws. You can live with a false sense of security if you[/usenetquote2]
want,
[usenetquote2]> > but please don't lull others into your stupor.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
of
>
No. Why do ask? What are you trying to imply?
Jul 3rd 2001, 4:51 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
to
>
>
Exactly my point. I'm still waiting for Alvena to admit she gave some VERY dangerous
advice and to retract it. However, she's not only refused to do so, but she blamed it
on 'her stockbroker' and then kill-filed me. Rather telling, I'd say.
>
>
Well, I agree that it's best not to break laws; however, I'm amazed and confused why
so many are so strenuously disputing the obvious truth of what I've said and also why
no one (except one person) has mentioned the fact that Alvena did indeed advise the
original poster to commit a federal crime! This is just incredible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
to
>
>
Exactly my point. I'm still waiting for Alvena to admit she gave some VERY dangerous
advice and to retract it. However, she's not only refused to do so, but she blamed it
on 'her stockbroker' and then kill-filed me. Rather telling, I'd say.
>
>
Well, I agree that it's best not to break laws; however, I'm amazed and confused why
so many are so strenuously disputing the obvious truth of what I've said and also why
no one (except one person) has mentioned the fact that Alvena did indeed advise the
original poster to commit a federal crime! This is just incredible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jul 3rd 2001, 5:26 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
You're a moron. An idiot. An asshole!
Here's the CTR itself:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/basic/bus...t04/27703009.G IF
For purposes of this CTR, the terms below have the following meanings:
Transaction in Currency - The physical transfer of currency from one person to
another. This does not include a transfer of funds by means of bank check, bank
draft, wire transfer or other written order that does not involve the physical
transfer of currency.
Eat shit.
Paulgani
>
[usenetquote2]> > > Hey, I don't know why everyone's jumping this guy so badly --- what[/usenetquote2]
he's
[usenetquote2]> > > saying is true. There is a law known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > track ANY transaction larger than $10,000, and requires that a CTR[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > (currency[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > transaction report) be filed with the federal government.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > CASH transaction larger than $10,000!!!![/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > NOT ANY transaction! CASH![/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Banks must certainly keep RECORDS of transactions over $10,000 -[/usenetquote2]
actually,
[usenetquote2]> > of ANY size. But if they are NOT CASH, they DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPORTED[/usenetquote2]
TO
[usenetquote2]> > THE GOVERNMENT![/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
have
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Paulgani[/usenetquote2]
Here's the CTR itself:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/basic/bus...t04/27703009.G IF
For purposes of this CTR, the terms below have the following meanings:
Transaction in Currency - The physical transfer of currency from one person to
another. This does not include a transfer of funds by means of bank check, bank
draft, wire transfer or other written order that does not involve the physical
transfer of currency.
Eat shit.
Paulgani
>
[usenetquote2]> > > Hey, I don't know why everyone's jumping this guy so badly --- what[/usenetquote2]
he's
[usenetquote2]> > > saying is true. There is a law known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]> > > track ANY transaction larger than $10,000, and requires that a CTR[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > (currency[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > transaction report) be filed with the federal government.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > CASH transaction larger than $10,000!!!![/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > NOT ANY transaction! CASH![/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Banks must certainly keep RECORDS of transactions over $10,000 -[/usenetquote2]
actually,
[usenetquote2]> > of ANY size. But if they are NOT CASH, they DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPORTED[/usenetquote2]
TO
[usenetquote2]> > THE GOVERNMENT![/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
have
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Paulgani[/usenetquote2]
Jul 3rd 2001, 6:03 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
Your childish insults do not strengthen your arguments. They merely weaken them.
>
>
>
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/basic/bus...t04/27703009.G
>
>
>
>
>
person
>
>
>
You know, you're a genius. You have figured-out a way to commit money laundering
without dectection.
What you're suggesting is that one simply have someone in some country (which imposes
no financial controls) simply deposit scads of drug money into their bank account in
that country (maybe in the Cayman Islands) -- and then WIRE (look Ma! no cash!) those
funds to your US bank account.
You then simply use checks, debit cards, and credit cards (always paying the credit
card bill by check, of course) to buy mansions, luxury cars, cavier, etc -- NEVER
withdrawing cash from your account -- never even TOUCHING cash.
Are you really naieve (or stupid) enough to believe that one could get away
with this?
Amazing.
>
Again, your childish insults only weaken your arguments.
>
Your childish insults do not strengthen your arguments. They merely weaken them.
>
>
>
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/basic/bus...t04/27703009.G
>
>
>
>
>
person
>
>
>
You know, you're a genius. You have figured-out a way to commit money laundering
without dectection.
What you're suggesting is that one simply have someone in some country (which imposes
no financial controls) simply deposit scads of drug money into their bank account in
that country (maybe in the Cayman Islands) -- and then WIRE (look Ma! no cash!) those
funds to your US bank account.
You then simply use checks, debit cards, and credit cards (always paying the credit
card bill by check, of course) to buy mansions, luxury cars, cavier, etc -- NEVER
withdrawing cash from your account -- never even TOUCHING cash.
Are you really naieve (or stupid) enough to believe that one could get away
with this?
Amazing.
>
Again, your childish insults only weaken your arguments.
>
Jul 3rd 2001, 12:07 pm
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
I don't know. Something like this...
>
These people have gone to great lengths to do what they do best, and all you can do
is call them names and insult them...? How would you like it if I started hurling
insults and names at you while you're trying to juggle a queue, the fryer and the
McFlurry machine..?
Now THAT'S a troll.
--
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø Shawn
Seabrook. http://www.orlando-seabrook.freeserve.co.uk This signature set seems to
have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we can defeat the email search bots.
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] I do not fear computers. I fear the
lack of them. (Isaac Asimov.)
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
>
I don't know. Something like this...
>
These people have gone to great lengths to do what they do best, and all you can do
is call them names and insult them...? How would you like it if I started hurling
insults and names at you while you're trying to juggle a queue, the fryer and the
McFlurry machine..?
Now THAT'S a troll.
--
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø Shawn
Seabrook. http://www.orlando-seabrook.freeserve.co.uk This signature set seems to
have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we can defeat the email search bots.
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] I do not fear computers. I fear the
lack of them. (Isaac Asimov.)
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
Jul 3rd 2001, 12:36 pm
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > What the hell is trollish about my pointing that out?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Troll?? Look, you idiot. [snip][/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Such as advising people to commit felonies? ROTFLMAO
>
There's little more to do when someone refuses to admit her mistake, retract her
'advice that's not really advice' and move on. She's clearly an idiot.
>
>
>
>
Well, all I can say is what I've said before. Go ahead and follow Alvena's advice on
committing structuring if you want to, and see what happens. Maybe nothing, maybe
something. Are you feeling lucky?
Well, are you?
>
>
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
[usenetquote2]> > What the hell is trollish about my pointing that out?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > Troll?? Look, you idiot. [snip][/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Such as advising people to commit felonies? ROTFLMAO
>
There's little more to do when someone refuses to admit her mistake, retract her
'advice that's not really advice' and move on. She's clearly an idiot.
>
>
>
>
Well, all I can say is what I've said before. Go ahead and follow Alvena's advice on
committing structuring if you want to, and see what happens. Maybe nothing, maybe
something. Are you feeling lucky?
Well, are you?
>
>
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
Jul 3rd 2001, 12:46 pm
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
Apparently you never went to debating class paulgani.
Until yesterday I didn't know anything about structuring but now I am an expert,
thanks to Mr. Dave. I think I'll follow Mr. Dave's advice. He sounds pretty
convincing, and he doesn't use words like "asshole" and "eat shit". Mr. Dave must be
a very civilized person, a real gentleman who never loses his self-control.
--jan
--
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking
good, either.
Apparently you never went to debating class paulgani.
Until yesterday I didn't know anything about structuring but now I am an expert,
thanks to Mr. Dave. I think I'll follow Mr. Dave's advice. He sounds pretty
convincing, and he doesn't use words like "asshole" and "eat shit". Mr. Dave must be
a very civilized person, a real gentleman who never loses his self-control.
--jan
--
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking
good, either.
Jul 3rd 2001, 12:49 pm
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
[sni-i-ip]
>
Alvena's
>
>
>
>
Well Hell, it looks like you have the motive, the means and the method. I take it
you'll be reporting us all for financial irregularities. Time to get the Standard
Statement of Accountancy Practice books out.
Or whatever their American equivelent is.
--
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø Shawn
Seabrook. http://www.orlando-seabrook.freeserve.co.uk This signature set seems to
have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we can defeat the email search bots.
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] I do not fear computers. I fear the
lack of them. (Isaac Asimov.)
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
>
Alvena's
>
>
>
>
Well Hell, it looks like you have the motive, the means and the method. I take it
you'll be reporting us all for financial irregularities. Time to get the Standard
Statement of Accountancy Practice books out.
Or whatever their American equivelent is.
--
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø Shawn
Seabrook. http://www.orlando-seabrook.freeserve.co.uk This signature set seems to
have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we can defeat the email search bots.
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] I do not fear computers. I fear the
lack of them. (Isaac Asimov.)
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤Â� �`°¤ø,¸¸»«¸,ø¤°`� �°Â¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,Â� �¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø� �¤Â°`°¤ø,¸ø¤°`°¤ø
Jul 3rd 2001, 1:35 pm
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
LOL! It doesn't particularly surprise me that you continually come to the
support of the most mentally challenged members of this newsgroup. You guys need
to stick together!
Paulgani
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >You're a moron. An idiot. An asshole! Eat shit.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
support of the most mentally challenged members of this newsgroup. You guys need
to stick together!
Paulgani
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >You're a moron. An idiot. An asshole! Eat shit.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jul 3rd 2001, 2:53 pm
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
----------
wrote:
>
>
>
>
Dave, I think the problem here is that two arguments are being crossed up. Let me
maybe clarify something, because I think both sides mean well:
1) All funds over $10,000 being brought into the US are supposed to be reported to
customs. This is true.
2) All CASH deposits in excess of $10,000 need to be reported to the IRS. This is
also true.
One is a customs regulation. The other is the Bank Secrecy Act. The Bank Secrecy Act,
as it applies to large deposits, applies only to cash transactions (as I recall, and
a quick web search seems to support this). The reason...? Well, it's easy, really.
Checks can be traced to their original source. Wires can also be traced. Cash cannot.
It's as simple as that, and it's designed to stop money laundering. When it comes to
the BSA, the onus of responsibility for reporting falls on the bank. The reason the
law is vague enough to allow for prosecution without proven "criminal intent" is that
often these types of things are the only ways mobsters and the like are ever caught.
It is unlikely they'd arrest someone with no suspicion hanging over them simply for
unknowingly contravening the Bank Secrecy Act by innocently dividing up deposits.
Wires have their own specific set of regulations. Most banks will NOT make a wire
transfer for a non-customer. In other words, you cannot walk in with cash and request
a wire. Why? Because the original source cannot be traced. And many banks will NOT
accept wires from non-banks. To use those "wire cash fast" places, the recepient must
be at another one of those "wire cash fast" places.
So you are right when you say that people bringing money amounting to over $10,000
into the US need to report it to customs. However, sending a foreign wire falls (I
believe) under separate guidelines, if you are using a bank wire transfer service.
International wires are done all the time, and the bank makes any necessary reports.
And Paulgani is right when he says only cash transactions over $10,000 need to be
reported to the IRS. They are two different issues, and fall under two different
jurisdictions, one being customs and one being federal banking regulations.
I hope this helps stop the debate.
All the best, Beth
wrote:
>
>
>
>
Dave, I think the problem here is that two arguments are being crossed up. Let me
maybe clarify something, because I think both sides mean well:
1) All funds over $10,000 being brought into the US are supposed to be reported to
customs. This is true.
2) All CASH deposits in excess of $10,000 need to be reported to the IRS. This is
also true.
One is a customs regulation. The other is the Bank Secrecy Act. The Bank Secrecy Act,
as it applies to large deposits, applies only to cash transactions (as I recall, and
a quick web search seems to support this). The reason...? Well, it's easy, really.
Checks can be traced to their original source. Wires can also be traced. Cash cannot.
It's as simple as that, and it's designed to stop money laundering. When it comes to
the BSA, the onus of responsibility for reporting falls on the bank. The reason the
law is vague enough to allow for prosecution without proven "criminal intent" is that
often these types of things are the only ways mobsters and the like are ever caught.
It is unlikely they'd arrest someone with no suspicion hanging over them simply for
unknowingly contravening the Bank Secrecy Act by innocently dividing up deposits.
Wires have their own specific set of regulations. Most banks will NOT make a wire
transfer for a non-customer. In other words, you cannot walk in with cash and request
a wire. Why? Because the original source cannot be traced. And many banks will NOT
accept wires from non-banks. To use those "wire cash fast" places, the recepient must
be at another one of those "wire cash fast" places.
So you are right when you say that people bringing money amounting to over $10,000
into the US need to report it to customs. However, sending a foreign wire falls (I
believe) under separate guidelines, if you are using a bank wire transfer service.
International wires are done all the time, and the bank makes any necessary reports.
And Paulgani is right when he says only cash transactions over $10,000 need to be
reported to the IRS. They are two different issues, and fall under two different
jurisdictions, one being customs and one being federal banking regulations.
I hope this helps stop the debate.
All the best, Beth
Jul 3rd 2001, 2:59 pm
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
----------
in message
>
[usenetquote2]>> Alvena, if you were one of my former customers in the bank, I would[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> recommended issuing a wire transfer as the safest and fastest way (foreign checks[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> sometimes take quite a while to clear). If the customer questioned the $10,000[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> rule, I would advise them that it is simply reported to the[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> If someone is afraid of having their money reported to the IRS, I'd be suspicious.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
No, I worked in Business Banking. However, it IS the tellers who fill out those
reports that you keep mentioning, so it's funny that you put the tellers down.
>
[usenetquote2]>> I would generally call the branch manager if I had a customer asking[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> too many questions about the $10,000 rule, since if they are that afraid[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> being reported to the IRS, something suspicious is usually going on.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Not true. As an employee of the bank, I was obligated to report any suspicious
activity. Not doing so could result in warnings or even termination. Contrary to
being none of my business, it was part of what I was paid to do.
The government is not out to prosecute innocent people. The money
laundering laws are designed to stop money laundering, pure and simple.
Beth
in message
>
[usenetquote2]>> Alvena, if you were one of my former customers in the bank, I would[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> recommended issuing a wire transfer as the safest and fastest way (foreign checks[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> sometimes take quite a while to clear). If the customer questioned the $10,000[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> rule, I would advise them that it is simply reported to the[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> If someone is afraid of having their money reported to the IRS, I'd be suspicious.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
No, I worked in Business Banking. However, it IS the tellers who fill out those
reports that you keep mentioning, so it's funny that you put the tellers down.
>
[usenetquote2]>> I would generally call the branch manager if I had a customer asking[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> too many questions about the $10,000 rule, since if they are that afraid[/usenetquote2]
>
[usenetquote2]>> being reported to the IRS, something suspicious is usually going on.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Not true. As an employee of the bank, I was obligated to report any suspicious
activity. Not doing so could result in warnings or even termination. Contrary to
being none of my business, it was part of what I was paid to do.
The government is not out to prosecute innocent people. The money
laundering laws are designed to stop money laundering, pure and simple.
Beth
