Rush Limbaugh Under Investigation for Money Laundering

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rush Limbaugh Under Investigation for Money Laundering

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:12:20 AM EDT

Story

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the subject of another investigation.
Law enforcement officials say that Limbaugh may have violated state money-laundering laws in the way he handled huge amounts of cash to buy his drugs.

Authorities say they became aware two years ago, in an investigation of the US Trust Bank, in New York, that Limbaugh had taken between 30 and 40 cash withdrawals from his account in amounts just under $10,000. That is the amount which requires the bank to file a report to the government.

Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, says there's no basis for any charge of money laundering against his client. But the lawyer confirms that as part of a US Trust operation, a bank employee personally delivered the cash to Limbaugh at his New York studio, in amounts of about $9,900. Limbaugh's lawyers say he did not do anything illegal, and that he is being falsely accused by those who want to force him off the air.

Officials say a decision on whether to prosecute Limbaugh on money-laundering charges will be made in the next few weeks.

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:15:44 AM EDT

[#1]

THIS, OTOH, could get ugly.........

Edited to add: Based on the data in the article, this is HARDLY money laundering. If I choose to make cash withdrawls, and I want to do it in amounts that don't set off the Big-Brother $10K limit, it matters not a whit how I do it.

Money laundering is when you take illegal cash and manipulate it in such a way as to make it legal. Withdrawing your own money, which you earned legally, is hardly "laundering".

Amazing, isn't it, how destructive drug addiction is? Sometimes I wonder if we could really handle them being completely decriminalized. Sure, the money aspect would go away, but what would be left behind?

It's the reason why the drug issue is so contentious. BOTH sides are right....

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:16:28 AM EDT

[#2]

That's like saying I have an Assault Weapon, because my rifle almost has enough evil features.

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:21:25 AM EDT

[#3]

If the limit is 10 grand than that means that 9.9 grand is perfectly OK.

That is like charging someone with tax evasion for gifting $2 under the Federal gifting restrictions every year. Utter BS.

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:24:29 AM EDT

[#4]

Who got Al Capone ?

It wasnt the FBI, it was the bean counters

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:25:10 AM EDT

[#5]

They're desperate. They know that if the drug issue itself couldn't stop him, then almost nothing else will.

IF (and I'll wait 'till the facts are in before I say "when") this is shown to be totally wrong, and were I Rush, I'd unleash all hell on the guys who released this story as slander, then give the proceeds to a decent drug-rehab charity.

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:31:09 AM EDT

[#6]

So, what...everyone is surprised he had to pay for the dope? He got his dope just like everyone else that participates in the billion dollar black market.

-HS

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:31:26 AM EDT

[#7]

This is just a left-wing ploy...bank employees should not have filled out a SAR form on Rush, c'mon, he's Rush, he's got loads of money. Why file a SAR on him? He's not an Albanian trying to do wire transfers overseas? JEEEEEEZZZZ!!!!

There was no intention to violate the Bank Secrecy Act regulations, he is not a suspect or suspicious person, he has the right to withdraw what he wants from his bank, its his money for crying out loud.

BTW....for those who don't know....SAR 'is a suspicious activity report'. This report was designed to alert the feds when suspicious people were transfering large amounts of money overseas. Banks usually do not file a SAR on a withdrawl from ones own personal checking or savings account (ESPECIALLY IF ITS RUSH LIMBAUGH)!!!! WHAT A FREAKING JOKE.....THIS IS WHY I HATE POLITICS. TIT FOR TAT.

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:38:04 AM EDT

[#8]

One thing most people don't know ( I know because I worked for a Bank for 13 years) is that a "BANK WILL FILE AN SAR EVEN IF THE AMOUNT IS UNDER 10,000". So if Mr. Abdul transfers 9.500 to Egypt, we are filing an SAR even though its under the 10,000 mark. Why? Because, when Mr. Abdul shows up again and again, and the money is just under the threshhold, we file the report! Then there are the 'Smurfs", who we also file SAR reports on.

Posted: 11/19/2003 6:46:08 AM EDT

[#9]

Well, I kinda figured that Rush wasn't out burglarizing homes for the money for his drug addiction.

He bought drugs the good old fashioned way - with money he earned!

Eric The(BewareTheLeviathan)Hun

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:13:31 AM EDT

[#10]

Edited to add: Based on the data in the article, this is HARDLY money laundering. If I choose to make cash withdrawals, and I want to do it in amounts that don't set off the Big-Brother $10K limit, it matters not a whit how I do it.

Isn't it a crime called "structuring" to make withdrawals/deposits in multiple small amounts just to avoid the reporting requirements?

Thanks to the drug war, and now the patriot act, you have just about zero privacy when it comes to banking.

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:20:52 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Isn't it a crime called "structuring" to make withdrawals/deposits in multiple small amounts just to avoid the reporting requirements?

Thanks to the drug war, and now the patriot act, you have just about zero privacy when it comes to banking.

I don't know about that, but I know it's NOT laundering. Besides, is it all that surprising that a private citizen withdrawing money he has legally earned STILL wouldn't want to trip the alarms?

I'm straight as an arrow, and I know I would, simply because it's none of their friggin' business.

I remember when I was buying my first house back in 1996, I had to fill out a million forms explaining all the major deposits into my bank account for the previous 6 months (and believe me, there weren't that many, regrettably). What a PITA! If I understand it correctly, it's FAR worse down here in SOuth Florida than other parts of the country.

But hey, those scenes in Scarface when Al and the boys show up to the bank with duffle-bags full of cash are ACCURATE, folks. I'm not sure if the laws they passed were ultimately effective, but the symptoms they tried to address certainly WERE.

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:31:33 AM EDT

[#12]

Posted By Zaphod
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:

Isn't it a crime called "structuring" to make withdrawals/deposits in multiple small amounts just to avoid the reporting requirements?

Thanks to the drug war, and now the patriot act, you have just about zero privacy when it comes to banking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about that, but I know it's NOT laundering. Besides, is it all that surprising that a private citizen withdrawing money he has legally earned STILL wouldn't want to trip the alarms?

I'm straight as an arrow, and I know I would, simply because it's none of their friggin' business.

...

It appears you're right. It isn't laundering, but it is a crime. You'd be guilty of structuring, because according to the law, it is their friggen business.

Check out this article I found on google:

The War on Cash and Privacy
by Donald S. McAlvany, March 1994

In the former Soviet Union, if the government wanted to apprehend and imprison someone who had committed no crime, they charged him with the catchall crime of "hooliganism." In America, the catchall crime used against organized crime figures or other Americans has for years been RICO statutes or simply "conspiracy." But in recent years the government has created a new catchall crime, punishable by imprisonment, confiscation of property, heavy fines, or all of them. It is called "money laundering."

Most Americans suppose "money laundering" refers primarily to the hidden, laundered, movement of cash profits from drug deals. Wrong! It refers today to almost any "financial crime," broken financial regulation, use of cash, avoidance of government cash-reporting laws, unreported foreign bank accounts, unreported transfer of funds, or virtually anything the government bureaucrats want it to mean. The definition is vague and ever expanding.

IRS agents are greatly accelerating money-laundering cases in situations where there is obviously no criminal intent, and certainly no involvement whatsoever with drugs or drug money. Remember, the IRS considers money laundering to be any effort you make to disguise your assets or avoid completing a federal currency transaction or border-crossing form.

If a tax case can be called "money laundering," it is no longer civil, but criminal, with large potential criminal sentences and fines. The government's growing and expanding money-laundering laws are becoming the basis for a total financial dictatorship in America — all under the guise of fighting the drug war. The first thing the Nazis did in the 1930s to establish control over their population was to establish "money crimes" that were punishable by forfeiture and imprisonment. Half a century later, the same thing is happening here. The war on drugs is a classic government power grab.

The Treasury Department has published a booklet entitled, "Money Laundering: A Banker's Guide to Avoiding Problems," which contains a list of suspicious activities that the Treasury Department says fit the profile of a "money launderer." These activities include: 1) Paying off a delinquent loan all at once; 2) Changing currency from small to large denominations; 3) Buying cashier's checks, money orders, or traveler's checks for less than the reporting limit (i.e., under $10,000); 4) Acting nervous while making large transactions with cash or monetary instruments; 5) Opening an account and using it as collateral for a loan; 6) Presenting a transaction that involves a large number of $50 and $100 bills; and 7) Presenting a transaction without counting the cash first. . . .

"Structuring" is defined by the IRS as any effort to avoid reporting cash or other monetary transactions over $10,000 by breaking them down into smaller "related" transactions over any 12-month period (defined by USC 31, Sec. 5322-5324-Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, as amended). A structuring violation carries with it a criminal penalty with a mandatory prison term, heavy fines, and confiscation of structured funds and money "connected" to them. (A civil penalty of a $25,000 fine with confiscation of structured funds also exists.) Monetary instruments included in structuring are cash, cashier's checks, money orders, and traveler's checks.

"Structuring" is now defined as money laundering, and is a criminal offense. You can now go to jail for dealing in cash to protect your financial privacy, if the IRS thinks you're trying to hide or structure your transactions or monetary instruments. Furthermore, it's against the law for a bank or merchant to tell you that you might be violating the law. This can get him prosecuted as part of your structuring "conspiracy." If they think your behavior is suspicious, they may fill out a form on you without telling you and file it with the IRS, which will promptly audit you, or begin a criminal investigation. . . .

The average person might say, "Well, the government would never come after anyone who was totally innocent." But that's not true — he misses the point. The IRS admits that 85% of the people accused of "structuring" committed no other crime than seeking to protect their privacy. The courts have upheld numerous criminal structuring convictions for violations that concealed no criminal activity. If the government wins the conviction, the judge must sentence the criminal "to a mandatory prison sentence."

This gives the lie to the argument that money laundering/structuring laws are enforced to get drug dealers and fight the war on drugs. The fact is that it is far easier to convict an honest law-abiding citizen and confiscate his property than to go after a real drug dealer who has a battery of high-priced lawyers and accountants, and who might even shoot back. . . .

In conclusion, money laundering and "structuring" laws have little if anything to do with the war on drugs. That is simply the excuse. They are a legal way for the socialist government bureaucrats to plunder and confiscate the peoples' assets (as in Nazi Germany or Russia); they are a way to enrich the government's debt-ridden coffers; they are a way to drive us toward the cashless society, and they are a way to place Orwellian-type controls on the American people. . . .

Mr. McAlvany is the editor of The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor , an investment newsletter, P.O. Box 80904, Phoenix, AZ 85071. This is an excerpt from the January 1993 issue. Reprinted by permission.

Editor's note: According to an article in the January 12, 1994, issue of the Denver Post , in Ratzlaf vs. U.S. (decided January 11, 1994), the U.S. Supreme Court, by a five to four vote, held that the law requires proof that the staggered cash transactions were done "willfully" to defy the law. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said prosecutors must show that the person knew of the reporting requirement and specifically intended to disobey the law.

from: www.fff.org/freedom/0394f.asp

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:42:09 AM EDT

[#13]

The $10000 limit for reporting on transactions is kinda stupid when it comes to withdrawals.

For deposits it makes more sense. If I'm depositing $10k, then I have either sold real estate, sold a large item of personal property which is usually titles or recorded in another way for insurance purposes, depositing business income for the week, or some other large transaction of which has already been reported for tax purposes. So, no big deal, they are just trying to make sure they get their cut and you aren't cheating the IRS.

Withdrawals on the other hand should be none of the government's business. There is no reason for the government to know I'm spending money since they don't tax my end when spending. If I want to withdrawal $10,000 to fill my swimming pool with jello, that is none of the government's business.

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:43:21 AM EDT

[#14]

Structuring is a federal offense and people do go to federal prison for it. It is a tool often used in drug conspiracy cases.

I am making no representations or judgements regarding Rush, but as far as the charge and its use, it is not like they dragged out some arcane code section or are trying to end run a vauge staute. This is one of the ways they do drug conspirators in the federal system.

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:46:21 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

"Structuring" is defined by the IRS as any effort to avoid reporting cash or other monetary transactions over $10,000 by breaking them down into smaller "related" transactions over any 12-month period (defined by USC 31, Sec. 5322-5324-Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, as amended). A structuring violation carries with it a criminal penalty with a mandatory prison term, heavy fines, and confiscation of structured funds and money "connected" to them. (A civil penalty of a $25,000 fine with confiscation of structured funds also exists.) Monetary instruments included in structuring are cash, cashier's checks, money orders, and traveler's checks.

"Structuring" is now defined as money laundering, and is a criminal offense. You can now go to jail for dealing in cash to protect your financial privacy, if the IRS thinks you're trying to hide or structure your transactions or monetary instruments. Furthermore, it's against the law for a bank or merchant to tell you that you might be violating the law. This can get him prosecuted as part of your structuring "conspiracy." If they think your behavior is suspicious, they may fill out a form on you without telling you and file it with the IRS, which will promptly audit you, or begin a criminal investigation. . . .

The average person might say, "Well, the government would never come after anyone who was totally innocent." But that's not true — he misses the point. The IRS admits that 85% of the people accused of "structuring" committed no other crime than seeking to protect their privacy. The courts have upheld numerous criminal structuring convictions for violations that concealed no criminal activity. If the government wins the conviction, the judge must sentence the criminal "to a mandatory prison sentence."

Yowza!

I hate the IRS. I really, really, do.....

I'll keep this in mind if I'm ever fortunate enough to be able to afford multiple $9,900 cash withdrawals in one year....

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:49:47 AM EDT

[#16]

Filing a SAR on an famous American, who has proved his identity to the bank, showed his SS#, ID etc, etc is TOTALLY uncalled for. This was some sniveling dweeb at his bank that filed that report. Taking money out of his checking account (post-taxible moolah), is no one's business. Money laudering? C'mon! Its just another attemp to sully an image.

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:50:56 AM EDT

[#17]

It was reported that he had said on his first day back, "I've not been artificial on the (rehab) program, I was all of that elsewhere."

A statement just as cryptic followed that: "There is a whole lot of stuff I can tell you that I can't tell you yet. There's even more honesty to come."

I think now it's pretty clear here that Rush has been working as a 'double-naught' spy for Uncle Sam - and due to the rigors of life working undercover (like some sort of Serpico), that an ancillary addiction to drugs was all but inevitable.

Obviously, it won't be but a matter of time before we read in the newspapers about the Soprano and Corleon crime syndicates falling helplessly into the hands of our merciless justice system – all due to a lynch-pin, top-secret, undercover informant with a big belly and an even bigger mouth.

(I really hope that’s the case because I’m truly not looking forward to hearing all of the heavy man-sobbing from the “ditto-heads” in my office that’s going to occur when they finally seize his homes and cart his fat, drug addicted ass off to jail... all in the holy name of “The War on Drugs”.)

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:58:27 AM EDT

[#18]

If I have a bank account. I have the right to withdraw money any way I choose. Every month for $9000, or an annual withdrawl of $110,000. I can even visit the bank every week and withdraw $1950 if I want. This is not structuring, nor tax evasion. It is my money.

If I was being illegally gifted $9900 a month and was using this figure to avoid IRS gift tax penalties, then I would be in trouble. But if I made the money, saved it, and withdrew it, then I am fine, and none of those Jackasses has a leg to stand on.

Posted: 11/19/2003 7:59:27 AM EDT

[#19]

Hmmmm......looks like DUh managed to hack into ARFCOM....

Here's a question: IF Rush goes down and goes off the air, who will replace him? It's not as if the market is suddenly going to dry up or anything...

Sean Hannity?
Laura Ingraham?
Walter Williams?
Tony Snow?
Roger Hedgcock?

Makes ya wonder, eh?

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:04:40 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
If I have a bank account. I have the right to withdraw money any way I choose. Every month for $9000, or an annual withdrawl of $110,000. I can even visit the bank every week and withdraw $1950 if I want. This is not structuring, nor tax evasion. It is my money.

Did you read the law cited above. It turns out you don't have that right! You can keep YOUR money under your matress and do whatever the hell you like with it, but once you put it into a banking system, them you are subject to the laws regulating that system.

Just because it's YOUR money doesn't mean you're not subject to the law when you use the banking system. In the same way, just because it's YOUR car, doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law when you drive on public roads.

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:09:40 AM EDT

[#21]

Are you saying that "Deep Throat" and im not talkin' about Linda Lovelace was Rush all along?

C'mon!

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:10:22 AM EDT

[#22]

Rush is talking about it now.

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:14:08 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Filing a SAR on an famous American, who has proved his identity to the bank, showed his SS#, ID etc, etc is TOTALLY uncalled for. This was some sniveling dweeb at his bank that filed that report. Taking money out of his checking account (post-taxible moolah), is no one's business. Money laudering? C'mon! Its just another attemp to sully an image.

I believe the BANK has been prosecuted, for advising customers how to "structure". I believe the BANK pled guilty to giving that advise. Perhaps in investigating that offense the investigators had access to the banks books, and started looking at individual transfers.

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:14:26 AM EDT

[#24]

Damn! I was so busy posting and reading that I missed the first 5 minutes of the program!

Figures he'd be discussing this!

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:17:43 AM EDT

[#25]

"The purposeful release of FALSE information"....just like I said all the way at the top....[This is just a left-wing ploy]!

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:18:31 AM EDT

[#26]

Yep.

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:22:43 AM EDT

[#27]

Its just a bunch of liberal commie pukes trying to hush Rush.

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:22:56 AM EDT

[#28]

IRS can go to hell..

Laundering is concealing the SOURCE of money obtained through illiegal means, NOT choosing to withdraw money earned in legal means in smaller amounts..

Posted: 11/19/2003 8:27:06 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If I have a bank account. I have the right to withdraw money any way I choose. Every month for $9000, or an annual withdrawl of $110,000. I can even visit the bank every week and withdraw $1950 if I want. This is not structuring, nor tax evasion. It is my money.

Did you read the law cited above. It turns out you don't have that right! You can keep YOUR money under your matress and do whatever the hell you like with it, but once you put it into a banking system, them you are subject to the laws regulating that system.

Just because it's YOUR money doesn't mean you're not subject to the law when you use the banking system. In the same way, just because it's YOUR car, doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law when you drive on public roads.

Banks aren't public entities.

Look, The IRS doesn't make law. Legislatures do. It is not illegal to make withdrawals for any reason for any amount. Did you read the last couple sentances of the article. The IRS was ruled against by the Supreme court in a ruling that basically said: You have to prove unlawful intent, to get a conviction for laundering.

Sure, you can raise red flags all you want, but there is nothing illegal about doing so. A red flag may prompt an investigation, but all your rights apply. You CAN withdraw any money you want, and for any reason. If you use that withdrawl to buy illegal drugs then you are subjected to other laws, but the withdrawl is NOT illegal.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rush Limbaugh Under Investigation for Money Laundering

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us