My interpretation is that the money Rush paid for illegal drugs are "proceeds" of the deal, whether or not he is the one receiving the "proceeds". So he did conduct a financial transaction which involves the "proceeds".

I think this might be in line with the intent of the law, as well. Suppose I am a "retail" drug dealer and you, James, are my "wholesale" supplier. I have to buy drugs in large quantities from you. I could attempt to evade detection by the authorities by structuring my transactions just as Rush did. However, if the law covers the case of a buyer as well as a seller, then the DEA (or whoever) would have an additional weapon to use against me, even if they were unable to prove that I resold the drugs.

I'd rehash it but it seems to answer your question if you read it.

Paul

(C) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

That is just another of a growing list of "thought crimes."

To get a conviction the prosecution has to be able to convince a jury what Rush was THINKING.

They have to convince a jury that by pulling out amounts higher than (say) 8000 but less than 10,000 he was THINKING about not filling out the paperwork.

Considering he wrote all these checks, all Rush has to do is say he just did not like to carry more than 10,000 on him at a time. The fact the Feds picked the same number for their reporting requirement just shows the power of round numbers. Case dismissed.

How can the state prove what a citizen was thinking?

Paul

(Now considering Rush has complained about the law I don't doubt it was intentional. But if you want me on the jury to convict someone for their thoughts, I just ain't gonna do it.)

Most crimes have an element of intent. Even homicide differs based on what the prosecution can prove was the accused's state of mind. I don't see how to avoid that.

But they wouldn't be "proceeds" until the transaction was completed, right? They're not proceeds when he's taking them out of the bank.

Here's more from the statute that backs up my point -

"knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part -
(i)
to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or "

Disguising the source of the proceeds is covered by the statute, and that's exactly what Rush did.

Rather clearly, the statute is designed to prevent the recipient of the money from false record keeping and the like. Rush was hiding the fact of the withdrawal of money in order to discourage attention as to how he was spending it. That's not money laundering.

"the source.. of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity"

It does not become "proceeds of specified unlawful activity
" until the unlawful activity takes place. (ie: he buys the drugs.)

If Rush has a joint bank account with his brother and his brother sold him drugs and the brother took the money out 9,000 at a time THAT would apply.

The whole point of the law is about cleaning dirty money. It is not about drying up a source of case for drug users.

I knew someone would point to the homicide example and I started to address it but brevity won. My complaint is that this is on a growing list of goofy ones.

For example if I beat a man to death with my bare hands I get (say) 7 years in prison. If I beat a GAY man to death with my bare hands I get 14 years because it is a "hate crime."

That is assuming I hate gay people. If I am gay then I'd only get the regular 7. - UNLESS I am a gay man who has not come out the closest, was frustrated because I grew up in a repressive family and killed the gay guy because he was gay. In THAT case I get the 14 years.

While that is a "topic for another day" as we say in radio, this law is equally as goofy.

They have a law that says you must fill out a form.
Then they pass a law that says if you are THINKING about going around the law, we'll get you for that too. (Note: You are not even thinking about breaking the law in this case, just avoiding it.)

That is a far cry from manslaughter vs premeditation.

Consider this: Murder is illegal.
What if I buy a gun cuz I am planning on killing my neighbor. Then I realize what I am doing and I destroy the gun.

Do I still go to jail because I was THINKING about murdering someone?

Paul

AH!- Or a better analogy... If I buy one of those books that say we don't really have to pay income tax, should I be charged with tax evasion even if I pay my taxes?

The law is just goofy.

No, I agree. Society is complicated and we need more laws now than in the frontier days, just because of technology and more interaction. But we've definitely gone overboard--it's impossible for even lawyers and judges to know what is against the law without looking it up--and even then it's debatable. How the ordinary citizen is supposed to cope, I dunno.

If, as a prosecutor, I can prove the following statement - "Mr. Limbaugh repeatedly withdrew amounts of $9900 in order to conceal the source of the proceeds of a transaction violating Federal drug statutes.", then I have proven a violation of the money laundering statute.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the "source of the proceeds" can refer to a transaction that took place prior to the drug deal itself?

Why is that so hard to understand? The nature of the victim does not necessarily trigger the hate crime statute -- the nature of the crime does.

Should the sentence for setting fire to a pile of wood on a neighbor's lawn be the same as the sentence for setting fire to a cross on a lawn? They're both just wood, right?