Posted: 7/16/2008 5:23:10 PM EDT
Everyone is now familiar with the term 'structuring' since the whole Spitzer incident. If not:
So if there is a transaction of $10,000 or more, it gets reported to the Feds. Lesser amounts may be reported depending on the bank. The act is illegal even if you are not doing it to hide money from or for illegal activity.  The first thing I thought of was the multiple handgun sale reporting:
But, the difference is that it is not a crime to 'structure' your purchase of handguns. You can buy two handguns but have them transfered 6 days apart so the dealer does not have to report the sale. So, how did the bill making structuring a crime get passed? It would make sense if structuring was illegal only when done to hide illegally obtained or used money. But it's not. |
OK, fine. We should call our representatives and have them pass a law making it a crime to circumvent the multiple handgun transaction form by picking up the guns 6 days apart even if the handguns are otherwise purchased legally. That's what I'm getting at. It is illegal to structure money even if you are not otherwise committing a crime. How can that possibly make sense? |
This is my problem with it: Your chief of police gets a copy of that form. I'm not worried about the gov't because they can pretty well much do whatever they want with you. But the secretary in the chief's office opens the letter. She gives her gangbanger brother your address. The less people know about the purchase the better. |
Why request the government enact further idiotic laws? Someone probably asked that very question, and thereby laid the groundwork for the financial structuring prohibition. Hooray war on drugs and civil liberties! |
What I'm saying is that a law should be passed making structuring illegal only if it is used to hide the criminal source of the funds. The way it is now, structuring is similarly stupid to the law that says you can't lie to a Federal LEO. |