A $10,400 starter check should trigger anti-money laundering investigation

This has been bugging me the last few days. Under the Patriot Act, banks are required to report cash deposits of $10,000 or more and they are supposed to make an inquiry into the source of funds. So, did this happen in Alvin Greene's case? If he received a $10,000 windfall, whether in cash or in another way, the bank is supposed to report this because it is a potential link to terrorism.

That's assuming that Greene did get the money for the filing fee from a source other than what he saved from his unemployment checks. Does anyone really buy the story that he plunked down his own savings when he filed?

A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) should have been filed if an unemployed bank customer suddenly began receiving large checks from unknown sources. He could have been laundering drug money, terrorist money or other illegally gotten gains.

The source of funds should have been reported on the campaign finance report, but it does not seem that he has filed one of those as required by law.

Congressman Clyburn is right to call for a federal investigation of this matter. It seems to me that Greene's candidacy would be rendered moot should it be determined that he paid the filing fee with illegally obtained funds.

what I can't understand is why there is no record. I think he was paid off by some body to do this. They thought he was too mentally challenged to question the "gift" and they took advantage. If he would just come clean I think he could bargain his way out of charges.

I haven't paid much attention but what did he say that he did to save the money? I read that he was in the Army for 13 years, if he was single most of that time, he could very easily save that much money. If he says he saved it from his time in the Army it's very believable imo.

in his obscenity charge. Someone has to not be able to afford to pay for a lawyer to get a public defender. So if he saved up these kind of funds, why did he not get his own lawyer?

I believe he had to make a statement of indigence in order to get a public defender assigned to him for his felony offense (the exact nature of which I don't know).

I don't know very much about the process in getting a public defender but I thought it had to do with your current income. I didn't know they asked or had to know about savings. I'm sure you're right so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

be less than a certain (very small) amount. Otherwise you're supposed to sell your holdings & pay for your own defense.

and then showing porn to a college girl.

He sounds like a perv and a creep.
However, I don't see how showing someone porn is a crime.

Can someone explain to me how this is a crime? BTW, I am a middle-aged female and remember when I was college-aged that creeps did things like that.

are reported. $9999.99 and under are not.

A CTR (Currency Transaction Report) is required only for cash deposits of $10,000 or more. However, a series of smaller deposits from suspicious sources should have been reported on a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).

That said, Greene should have been required to report the source of funds on a campaign finance report to the FEC. He tried to pay with a personal check at first but was turned away because he had to have a check from his campaign committee. He then returned a few hours later with a blank "starter" check with the name of his campaign committee handwritten at the top. So it seems pretty clear that the money came from his personal checking account via a brand new "campaign committee" account. Someone at the bank has to know something about how these accounts were set up and funded. If campaign donors were making donations directly to Greene personally instead of to his campaign account (which he did not have until after he tried to write a personal check), then that is a violation of federal election laws.

I used to have to sign a form every time I made a deposit for the restaurant I managed that was over $10,000, back in the late 90's.

know something about every Democratic candidate on the statewide ticket. Especially someone running for Senator. I haven't seen anyone address this in the media.

Even a candidate with no name recognition whom everyone thinks has no chance of winning should never be taken for granted. Rawl's campaign should have done a background check on their opponent and, since the news media seemed to be asleep at the wheel, given the results of their investigation to the news outlet of their choice.

And I would also add that any candidate who pays a $10,000 filing fee should not be taken lightly. That's a lot of money to run for an office just for the fun of it.

Nikki Haley's affairs :eyes:. Meanwhile, I think it is the SC state Dem. party who needs to check out their candidates/endorse them or not. What a mess.

It's going to be real interesting to see what happens in this. There seems to be precedent for flawed elections not being overturned. If this one is overturned, then it would seem just another 'dump on the poor people' routine.

With unemployment soaring, it is unreasonable that unemployed folks are not elected to congress in greater numbers. Of course that follows the idea that our government should be "representative".

He head repeated that claim in several interviews.

inquiry, as well. i believe that is a rico requirement (not dhs) from many years ago that is still in effect.

sc has open primaries. apparently since demint had no primary challenger, the rnc may have had all the repubs vote for greene. that's what i have heard so far. anyone else hear this?

ellen fl

My bowling leagues are in excess of $75K each and we have a two-signature account & always have to jump through hoops..the form asks for place of employment too..

My guess is that a dem bigwig need to have a heart to heart with Mr Greene, and offer him competent legal representation for his upcoming trial, in exchange for the skinny on who gave him the money...name names, places they met, phone numbers etc.

But then they did have a very highly publicized Republican gubernatorial primary which the Republican Party would have encouraged voters to participate in.

Since all SC voters are registered as unaffiliated and have an open primary where you simply choose which party's ballot you want when you walk into the polling place, I think it is more likely that the Republicans targeted likely Democratic voters and convinced them to vote for Greene. Even more likely is that they found a way to rig the election machines.

The requirement for the bank to report the transactions deals with cash, i.e. currency. Deposit of a check over $10,000 does not trigger reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act.

If they thought money laundering might be going on, it could trigger filing a Suspicious Activity Report. But depositing a check really isn't all that suspicious.

I was explaining why depositing a check for $10,000 wouldn't trigger any reporting requirements.

He was explaining why cash withdrawals over $10,000 would.

you're right that it's cash. i forgot my banking.

ellen fl

Rawl has until noon tomorrow to file a protest. While he won't give any specifics, he has said to expect "lots of news tomorrow".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38479.html

I'm not saying that is the truth of the matter. But if it were true, he could have had that money in a personal savings account and then, when the election board told him he needed a campaign account, he could have opened one and transferred the funds.

I have no idea what Homeland Security or FEC rules are on transferring one's personal money to a campaign account. I also know nothing about military compensation.

I find the whole issue of Mr. Greene strange and have no idea what to believe at this point. It could be a tale of a fool with money who got a lucky break. He could be a plant designed to make Demint look pristine and divide South Carolinian African American voters from the state Democratic party. However, while I am not discounting the possibility of electronic vote manipulation, I don't think that it is the work of some white-hat hacker trying to prove the faultiness of the machinery.

Greene who was unemployed and facing trial on felony obscenity charges decides to spend what should be for him the large sum of $10000+ (possibly even his last dime) to run in a primary he did not intend to campaign in, for the chance to run against an entrenched incumbent he would have no chance of defeating, and for a job for which is woefully unprepared and unqualified. Not saying all this may not be true or he doesn't have the right to do it if he wants it just doesn't sound like something a reasonably intelligent and thoughtful person would do. I still say the 86 point difference between the absentee vote and the ES&S vote is impossible to explain. All the rightwing (if you buy into the conspiracy theories) has to do in this case is muddy the water enough that they can say 'there are a lot of different theories about what might have happened, but we may never know for sure what really did happen. So we should just move on'. The theory has been put forward that this is some kind of dry run. I could buy that and not only that they could change the votes and get a complete unknown declared the victor in an inconsequential primary but more importantly that they can get the public to look the other way and let it stand'. If you are going to steal elections in a big way you have to make sure that at a minimum the public will not rise up against you and will accept that there is 'an argument' that you won fair and square. Isn't it interesting that when the Republicans steal elections they 'have a mandate' but when the Democrats win an election fair and square they are illegitimate and have no right to be POTUS?

I was providing the OP with the reason Greene gave for his candidate fee.

I am also not discounting the possibility that someone messed with the voting machines. I just don't think that if it was done, it was done by white hats trying to bring light to flawed technology. Some here have posited this as a theory and I'm not buying it. If the machines were messed with, it was done by people who want to harm this interests of the Democratic party.

I'm not sure how you could read what I wrote and come away thinking I believe anything except that Mr. Green's win is suspicious. I have my theories but I would rather hear more facts before I form an absolute opinion. This story is in its infancy.

Wasn't really aiming my diatribe at you personally and obviously misread your point. I probably should have replied to the original OP and addressed my rant as 'so they are saying' rather than 'so you are saying'.

Words fly around here at a staggering pace. :)

His father is prosperous for someone that lives in Manning - 30% of Manning lives below the poverty line, yet Greene graduated from University of South Carolina. His father has also been involved in Democratic politics in Manning according to a newspaper article.

Why is it impossible that his father gave him the money or helped somehow?

If they had enough money to pay four years of university, why is $10,000 so much money?

I know that in North Carolina a candidate and/or their immediate family members can contribute unlimited amounts. It still has to be reported though.

I'm not sure about federal election law or South Carolina state law, nor am I sure which law applies in the case of the SC primary filing fee. Federal candidates can use unlimited amounts of their own funds though, and it wouldn't be unheard of for a father to give his son $10,000.

South Carolina has the candidates pay the filing fee to the political parties. Most states, including North Carolina, have the candidates pay the filing fee to a government-run Board of Elections. I'm guessing that South Carolina wants to keep the government out of the process as much as possible, so they have the political parties pick up the tab for holding primaries to select their parties' candidates.