I dunno if she would win or not. But, I think if she brings in barrels full of receipts it might help. It worked on 34th street.

You cannot make so many deposits just under $10,000, even if they are legal. Things like this show how screwed up our government can be.

The elimination of civil asset forfeiture is one of them. CAF is simply theft, perpetrated by the government. The government may have the ability to declare it's theft "legal", but it's still theft.

then perhaps liberals and Tea Party folks should work together on this one issue. If we have common ground to better our communities, why shouldn't we do it?

Think about it (as I'm sure she has) - had she just not made those deposits at all, they couldn't have seized her money.

She basically stole from all of us. Wonder why child credit doesn't raise fast enough. Thank this person and the many others wo do the same illegal activity.

She operates a cash only business, and apparently pays taxes on the income. She just made too many deposits under $10k and ran afoul of the Bank Secrecy act which is intended to thwart money laundering. If this woman was paying her correct taxes (which every indication is that she has been doing that), then she wasn't money laundering and your comment makes little sense.

What the heck are you talking about?

Employees get all sorts of praise and maybe even perks for bringing in cash and tend to lose perspective when it's easier to hammer the little guy than go after real targets.

It can happen anywhere, and collections, public or private, are rife with this. Look at the cops who confiscate cash they find during a traffic stop.

Will the tea party come to her defense?

of IRS agents properly giving politically-named groups extra scrutiny when they apply for tax-free status for which political groups don't qualify.

...every deposit I've made, over my entire lifetime, has been for less than 10,000.00.

The rule is about cash deposits of $10,000 or more have to be reported. The flip side of that is if you keep depositing $9000 in cash all the time they get suspicious that you are trying to avoid being reported on.

Deliberately depositing less than the reportable amount to avoid filing a Cash Transaction Report. It shouldn't be a crime unless there is illegal activity behind it.

than $10,000 — maybe even a little as a $6500 cash deposit is actually reported.

See: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8300.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/FAQs-Regarding-Reporting-Cash-Payments-of-Over-10000-Form-8300

but, like I said, as little as $6500 in cash may be reported if there is suspicion that of tax evasion.

The only way the IRS gets in the game is if the banks reports it. Thats what got Spitzer making transfers and deposits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/11/15/irs-backs-down-returns-seized-cash-to-family-businesses/

If we just guess that she made 11 deposits of $3000, one every other week for 22 weeks, that would do it. Of course, I am sure there was money going in and out as she covered expenses for the business.

I can see not wanting to fill out the paperwork and doing smaller deposits. If the IRS says there is something wrong with doing that, they should put out guidelines to that effect.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 06:48 PM - Edit history (2)

I have also redeposited large sums. I wonder what relationship she had with the bank. There has to be more infomation we not getting.

who they are doing business with and if anything seems out of the ordinary they have a duty to report. If her bankers didn't know her or what her business was very well, they could have blown the whistle.

If your bankers know you and the business you are in and know it is legitimate and about how much you can be expected to deposit, no one will bat an eye.

Doesn't matter if it was legally obtained or not- intentionally hide it from the IRS and its a crime. She knew about the $10,000 limit and was intentionally staying underneath.

And while we may not like these laws, if we want to have a highly progressive tax that is actually enforced we must have these reporting limits to make sure that the IRS is aware of cash transactions and we must have laws making it illegal to evade them.

You can't have a progressive income tax without strong, vigorously enforced laws. Part of that must be criminalization of efforts to avoid reporting to the IRS.

If you let one person intentionally strutting deposits to avoid reporting get off because they "were not trying to hide" you set the precedent that everyone doing the same can claim that excuse.

That just is how it is. You favor a progressive tax you have to give the government the power to enforce that and catch cheats. The enforcement side may make many uncomfortable, but it's an essential part of it.

The law is clear, breaking up deposits to avoid reporting is a crime.

If you are claiming we can have a strong progressive income tax without strong enforcement mechanisms, I'm all ears about how you would fight evasion...

Without it the job of the IRS catching tax evaders is a lot harder, so far more will get away with it.

If I make nine $10,000 deposits or ten $9,000 deposits it is the same amount of money. How am I avoiding the same taxes on $90,000?

It is avoiding reporting, the reporting is a tool used by the IRS so they have a good idea who is making large cash deposits.

People making large cash deposits are at high risk of evading taxes. Business done all in cash is the hardest to ensure is being taxed properly and the easiest to evade taxes.

So the reporting is a needed and valid tool.

For that tool to work it has to be used. Leaving it legal to simply skirt under the reporting limits leaved a gaping loophole that lets the evaders escape reporting.

If you are paying your taxes the reporting is of zero matter to you, as you are already telling the IRS about all that money just like you are supposed to.

If you are hiding that money, evading the reporting benefits you.

tried to find out why the questionable deposits, and that's what they were..questionable.
If wrong doing was determined, then they could have taken her to court, confiscation should not enter the picture unless and until she is found guilty of a crime.

It isn't the fact the IRS flag her as suspicious or investigated her. People don't like that the IRS can seize "steal" your money without first proving you did something wrong. It is hard to see how her activity warranted the penalty assessed to her and certainly the IRS hasn't proven she is guilty of the crimes the law was intended to address. The law doesn't actually require them to prove anything ever. They can just take it.

So "a sign you may be committing a crime" is a crime???.. I call BS. Show me the federal statute. I can see where that may qualify you to be investigated..but to be charged with a crime? BS. In fact the article clearly stated the woman was not charged with any crime.

31 U.S. Code § 5324 - Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited

Current through Pub. L. 113-185. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Financial Institutions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508—
(1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by an order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508;
(2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by any order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508, that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.
(b) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Nonfinancial Trades or Businesses.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the report requirements of section 5331 or any regulation prescribed under such section—
(1) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to fail to file a report required under section 5331 or any regulation prescribed under such section;
(2) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to file a report required under section 5331 or any regulation prescribed under such section that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with 1 or more nonfinancial trades or businesses.
(c) International Monetary Instrument Transactions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5316—
(1) fail to file a report required by section 5316, or cause or attempt to cause a person to fail to file such a report;
(2) file or cause or attempt to cause a person to file a report required under section 5316 that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any importation or exportation of monetary instruments.
(d) Criminal Penalty.—
(1) In general.— Whoever violates this section shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) Enhanced penalty for aggravated cases.— Whoever violates this section while violating another law of the United States or as part of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period shall be fined twice the amount provided in subsection (b)(3) or (c)(3) (as the case may be) of section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

deposits?

One says that any deposit over $10,000 in cash must be reported to the IRS.

She evaded that reporting by breaking her deposits up to be under $10,000.

That is a crime.

Period.

But, if i'm not, i wouldn't arrested at my home later. The very fact i was driving a car is a "sign" of something, but no law is broken.

Your logic escapes me.

Structuring deposits to avoid isn't just liek plain driving.

Making regular deposits is just like plain driving. Structuring your deposits to avoid reporting is like making a u-turn when you see a DUI checkpoint.

The flaw is in your logic. There is no difference. There is no EVIDENCE she intended to shield the deposits from the IRS. Absolutely none.

You're making a logical leap to that effect.

That's on you.

On Edit: If you think i was offering an analogy, that's also on you. I was pointing on how ridiculous the whole concept that something is a "sign" of something in this case. I was analogizing nothing.

There was no investigation, no warrant, no work what-so-ever.

Just a stupid move and saying job well done...

get her banking records. You do need a warrant, which the gov't obtained---for seizure.

The 4th Amendment, and all that went with it, was so "last century," anyway...

insured by the FDIC.

Although, I am sure that the 1 percent would agree that their banking is nobody else's business.

...and how the camel's nose-in-the-tent was the "war on drugs."

Asset forfeiture, like rolled back 4th Amendment "protections," are part and parcel of the intrusiveness of the all-pervasive state.

Which is actually done at the behest of the 1%.

Might be good to "just say no" to some of their ideas, however.

under Smith v Maryland and its progeny. As for asset seizure, note that a warrant was issued in this case.

I don't disagree with you that the 4th amendment needs protecting. Knowledge of the law doesn't mean I agree with it. It just means I know what I am talking about. Here you have a woman who admits she structured her deposits to avoid paperwork.....and that is a crime.

...in a colleague's law school classroom, I have a different view on its deployment vs. the original "spirit" of it.

And this incident would entirely violate that spirit. We don't even know how cash flow comes in to her restaurant. She's being punished, assets seized, for what could be a facet of how money comes in to her establishment.

But the asset forfeiture -- again, even according to former Federal prosecutors who'd used the law to actually catch drug smugglers, after it was passed -- has become, ultimately, too much to resist. And skewed everything.

Even our normal sense of what constitutes civil liberty violations, as citizens.

as another lawyer on this thread pointed out how she made 12000 dollars in one day it woukd have been perfectly legal for her to deposit that. But had she structured it, as she said she did.... in order to avoid the paperwork.... that is illegal.

Ad a US citizen she always has the option of not using a bank at all.

Jesus H. Christ.

have a drink.

Look over your posts down thread where you agree it was an unjust seizure.

He was a guest speaker in my friend's law class, two years ago.

You are free to take that stick out of your rear end, now.

in our commercial transactions.

from the link:

Her intent was to "avoid paperwork". AKA avoid reporting. Avoiding reporting is its own crime.

Also, many business owners are insured for cash amounts up to $10K. Thus, they keep cash on hand below that amount. It's to comply with their insurance requirements, not to deceive the IRS.

This is about a money grab by Federal agencies that go after innocent business owners because the agencies get a cut out of any proceeds they can grab. That is how the forfeiture law works,and it was intended to go after drug sellers and money launderers, not ordinary business owners.

The IRS was only prosecuting 1 out of 5 of the people whose money they took. Now they have announced they'll no longer be following this process -- proving they were wrong all along.

She admits she structured her deposits to be under 10k so the bank wouldn't have to do paperwork.

She says she did so thinking it was doing them a favor. Can't say if thag is true or not, but I am sure everyone caught doing this has a similar excuse and didn't mean to evade reporting.

If a landlord didn't get a building permit to put an addition on an apartment building, but built everything to code, would you be ok with them skipping permits and inspection to "save everybody the paperwork"? Same. Principle, the building pernit and IRS reports both exist for the greater good of society.

without first talking to a lawyer. Proving motivation on an all cash business would have been virtually impossible (one example was motivation to hold cash until reaching the insurance threshold as mentioned by one poster).

Also fuels my concerns about lack of privacy domestically in communications and such.

And they don't for 4/5ths of the other people whose money they tried to steal.

Remember innocent till proven guilty? That is still supposed to be the operative principle in our justice system. You seem to have forgotten about that.

Your analogy fails because she was NOT required by law to make deposits over $10K. The law merely required her not to make lower deposits IN ORDER TO evade reporting requirements. And the IRS cannot prove that's what she was trying to do. She thought she was saving the bank some effort, not thwarting the IRS.

That is all it takes to meet the elements of the crime as the statute is written.

internal bank paperwork? She got the advice from her mother, not some tax expert.

And she's just some small business owner trying to carry on the family business, not some legal whiz.

But ignorance of a speed limit won't get you excused from a ticket, ignorance of the need for a building permit doesn't excuse doing work without one, ignorance of the requirement to use a dealer to sell a gun across state lines doesn't make doing so not a crime, ignorance of the illegality of making threats against the President without intent to carry them out will still get you in trouble.

Like any of the above, pleading ignorance might be a strategy in court, but it doesn't change that the crime was committed.

It's only illegal to do that with the deliberate intention of structuring your deposits to avoid the IRS.

So her ignorance of the law and her lack of intention to subvert it are what make her innocent.

It isn't "to avoid the IRS"... it's "to avoid the reporting requirement"... which is just what she says she did.

trying to save the bank some paperwork -- which could have even been internal bank paperwork. Where does she say anything about trying to avoid reporting to the IRS?

please stop insinuating that it is.

She kept her deposis under 10k to avoid the reporting reqiremets. That explicitly violates the law. We can disagree with the law, but we can't pretend that it doesn't exist.

The interesting thing there is that she claimed that she claimed that she was doing it to make things easier on the bank... when it actually makes it harder.

that's what she was doing, but the law is still "innocent till proven guilty" -- and you can't prove she understood what paperwork the bank could avoid if her deposits were under $10K.

She knew exceeding $10,000 per deposit caused additional paperwork.

She intentionally structured her deposits to avoid going over $10,000.

This violated the law, as I posted above. It says not one thing about how well you understand it. It says if you structure your deposits in a way the avoids reporting you are breaking the law. She did just that.

is on a form for the IRS. It could have been some other paperwork, for all she knew.

And it's only illegal if your intention is to thwart the IRS.

There is no law saying that it's wrong to avoid paperwork in general -- only that IRS form, which she didn't know about.

She obviously knew that a form was required for amounts over $10k and acted to avoid that form. Claiming that she may have been ignorant of that law's requirements has never been an excuse (though I rather doubt that she was).

There is no law saying that it's wrong to avoid paperwork in general

Right... just the paperwork that she tried to avoid.

which she didn't know about.

Not provable... and no relevant even if it could be proven.

It could have been internal bank paperwork for all she knew.

Better reread the Constitution. She's not required to prove her INNOCENCE. They're required to prove her guilt. And they can't prove that she tried to avoid reporting anything to the government. All she's saying is, based on her mother's advice, she was trying to save the bank some paperwork -- which could have been an internal bank matter. Not every item of paperwork is a government form. The government can't prove what her intent was, because the government isn't a mind reader. And the intent to structure cash deposits to avoid the reporting requirement -- which she didn't have -- is critical to this law.

And the IRS is admitting they've been crossing the line with these cases and they're stopping the practice, because only 1 out of 5 of these forfeitures was even resulting in criminal charges.

That entire theory rests on the assumption that she had to know that the government requires the reporting i order for it to be illegal...

... that isn't the case. Nor do I find the spin that she might have thought that it was an internal bank thing credible (again - not that it matters).

And the IRS is admitting they've been crossing the line with these cases and they're stopping the practice,

They didn't admit that they "crossed the line". They made clear that the reports that nothing illegal was done were incorrect, and that the new policy does not impact prior actions. What they did was make a political decision that the current policy made them look bad.

That sounds like the right thing to do.

But it doesn't change the fact that she broke the law.

Justice has prevailed!

And yes... she did say that (or so the report says)

and you can't prove she understood what paperwork the bank could avoid if her deposits were under $10K.

I don't need to. I just need to point out that she knew that some paperwork was required above that amount... and intentionally structued her transactions to avoid it.

I've filled out hundreds of those forms. She would have been well aware of when it was required after the first one was filled out.

The interesting thing is that if she has a business that deals in cash and regularly needs to deposit that much... it isn't a big deal for the bank to get her an exception. She could easily have found that the limite would be higher for her.

Structuring, like what Eliot Spitzer did, is deliberately making deposits or withdrawals in an attempt to avoid this process.

the bank could avoid if she made her usual small daily deposits. All she knew was her mother said it would save the bank some paperwork. It could have even been internal bank paperwork for all she knew.

She knew there was extra steps on deposits over $10k, and she deliberately avoided them. The law still applies whether or not she knew those extra steps were from the law, or from her bank.

Just like "I thought the speed limit was 55" will not get you out of a ticket. You didn't intend to speed, but you did.

Now, if your theory is true, she should be very pissed at her bank for not warning her. They are extremely familiar with the reporting requirements.

It isn't illegal to keep deposits under $10K unless the intent is to structure the deposits to thwart the IRS.

It isn't illegal to keep deposits under $10K to reduce a bank's OWN internal paperwork, which in her mind this could have been. There is no proof that she deliberately structured her small deposits to avoid any reporting requirement to the government.

On top of everything else, she runs a small business and her normal deposits wouldn't be in excess of $10K anyway.

She didn't know what paperwork her mother was talking about, just that the bank would have less paperwork if the deposits were smaller.

That's kinda a big hint that it's not the bank's paperwork. She also could have asked her banker "What's that form?" Or "Do I save you guys some work if I make smaller deposits?"

Let's play another hypothetical: You are actually laundering money, and attempting to disguise it via your cash-only business. What are you going to claim when you get caught structuring your deposits to avoid the reporting requirements? "I knew exactly what I was doing" or "I didn't know it was GOVERNMENT paperwork!"

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Was there a trial? Did they find her guilty? Or did they just grab her money and try to make her prove she was innocent?

I have made cash deposits to our bank upon occasion and the bank never gave me a government form to fill out. Why would she have expected one?

Funny that the IRS is now formally giving up the practice that they say was perfectly okay.

If she said such a thing, quote please. All I read was that her mother said it would save the bank some paperwork. You are putting words into her mouth.

And you failed to address the fact that the civil forfeiture law was NOT designed for these circumstances, is no doubt unconstitutional under these circumstances, and that's why the IRS is stopping the practice.

When my father made his large cash deposits the form was filed electronically by the teller. He never saw the paperwork.

The reg says that if they suspect her of structuring the transactions to avoid the reporting, they have to fill the form out after she's gone (alone with a SAR).

Where she should be ticked at them (assuming she runs a legit business... and assuming that they didn't offer to help her) is that they could have put her in for an exception. Businesses that regularly deal with more than that much cash (grocery stores, etc) can get much higher limits. They just go through a process to identify what their normal cash business is, and the limit gets set a little above the top end of that range.

Of course... we don't know those facts.

More like letting her know she isn't saving them any work. Assuming, of course, that she told them she was trying to save them extra paperwork.

Most people with cash businesses know all about the requirements... and most of them find out because they're standing there as it's being filled out and they're told that the government requires it.