Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ELIOT SPITZER WAS NOT CAUGHT BY THE PATRIOT ACT:
Instapundit ^

Posted on 03/12/2008 8:52:10 PM PDT by newbie2008

ELIOT SPITZER WAS NOT CAUGHT BY THE PATRIOT ACT: "Currency transaction reporting requirements were enacted in the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and money laundering was made a crime in overhaul of the federal narcotics laws that took place in 1986. Believe it or not, Karl Rove did not diabolically dream these provisions up to trap unwary Democrats, nor are they part of George W. Bush's post-9/11 Politics of Fear."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: client9; hooker; payforplay; spitzmas; sucker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2008 8:52:11 PM PDT by newbie2008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: newbie2008
The Dims are already crying foul on their pathetic blogs.....claiming the feds wiretapped all Spritz's personal, banking, legal, etc. conversations and that the evil Boooosh is trying to do the same to every citizen in the country.

I'm glad this premptive strike is out.....although it'll make no difference to the mentally-diseased liberals and the anti-war crazies.

Leni

2 posted on 03/12/2008 8:58:04 PM PDT by MinuteGal (I Love My Country More Than I Hate McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newbie2008

That’s kind of like saying George Bush had nothing to do with 9/11.


3 posted on 03/12/2008 8:58:55 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (When you choose the lesser of two evils, you still have evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newbie2008

His transactions were apparently all under $10,000 so I don’t see why this article would reference the 1970 rules.


4 posted on 03/12/2008 9:06:11 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newbie2008

After all the grief he caused to business in New York, someone at his bank must have been sufficiently annoyed to turn him in.


5 posted on 03/12/2008 9:09:51 PM PDT by AZLiberty (President Fred -- I like the sound of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newbie2008

I’ve already called a moonbat on the partisan BS of blaming the Bush Administration for this........and it was not on a political blog.


6 posted on 03/12/2008 9:14:30 PM PDT by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty

Spitzer is a power-sick unit. He made a lot of enemies.


7 posted on 03/12/2008 9:14:39 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...call 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

When I asked for a money order check from my credit union for around $5000, they had to fill out a paper. That has been going on for years.


8 posted on 03/12/2008 9:31:34 PM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
When typing out his $4300.00 payment to the phoney QAT account he missed the Q and typed the R key instead. Gave himself away...
9 posted on 03/12/2008 9:35:45 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
He tried to fool the system by breaking up the transfers so they individually wouldn't hit the $10,000 trigger but the bank reported the total amount.

There was a push to change the bank reporting trigger to $1,000 for all transactions but the Democrats fought it to keep their whore visits out of it.

10 posted on 03/12/2008 9:35:50 PM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

If a bank believes your breaking up the $10,000+ amount into smaller amounts and requesting multiple wiretransfers to same location or locations with connecting relationships, than they will report you.

If someone contacts the bank and tells them they want their name removed from wiretransfers (Spitzer did and thats what got him reported), they will report you as well.


11 posted on 03/12/2008 9:40:37 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican

Right but that is a more recent change, not from 1970.


12 posted on 03/12/2008 9:41:30 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican

I guess the question is...

Why should the government be allowed to look at our wire transfers? Maybe it should be like our phone taps. wire transfers out of the country are open season. But otherwise, buzz off.

BTW, I am not a spitzer fan. I just don’t like the gov’t spying on my money.


13 posted on 03/12/2008 9:44:55 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

People talk about that yet 10,000 is still the rule.


14 posted on 03/12/2008 9:46:59 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Yes, but AML monitoring policies dates back to creation of BSA. Its rules have just been agumented in the years since then to help screen for drug money launders and terrorism funding. If someone asks a bank to remove their name from a wiretransfer, this would only generate a SAR because of the patriot act? There was no rules for this before that?


15 posted on 03/12/2008 9:52:56 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newbie2008

This is correct. When this law came out, I said that it should be called the Bank Unsecrecy Act because that’s just what it is.


16 posted on 03/12/2008 9:55:35 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Here's wiki info on the Bank Secrecy Act. The limit is much lower for some types of transactions such as money orders. I think all amounts are reported for international transfers. In addition the bank is required to report ANY amount if it is suspicious in nature. There is one bank in the USA that is not allowed to report any transfers nor charge bounced check fees. That is the Bank of Congress.

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)

Any cash transaction where the customer seems to be trying to avoid BSA reporting requirements (e.g., CTR, MIL). A SAR must also be filed if the customer's actions indicate that s/he is laundering money or otherwise violating federal criminal law. The customer must not know that a SAR is being filed. These reports are filed with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN").

17 posted on 03/12/2008 10:02:00 PM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

lovely.


18 posted on 03/12/2008 10:08:30 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Because the “under the radar” structuring of transactions under $10K is “structuring” which is a felony if proven. The bank noted suspicious account activity that looked like an ongoing effort to evade the $10k reporting threshold, hence the reference to the banking act. Spitzer, of all people, knew this.


19 posted on 03/12/2008 10:15:42 PM PDT by bajabaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
The Dims are already crying foul on their pathetic blogs.....claiming the feds wiretapped all Spritz's personal, banking, legal, etc. conversations and that the evil Boooosh is trying to do the same to every citizen in the country.

When ABC posted a story from an anonymous source that said "We had no interest in the Emperor's Club until Spitzer" I predicted this would be the result. I still have seen no proof that the break was in Spitzer's account setting off red flags but rather the Emperor's Club set off red flags and upon further review Spitzer's accounts/phone number were noticed.

I find it hard to believe that a high-price international prostitute ring would be of no interest (by definition made for the feds) except that the feds know that some high profile individuals would be exposed to the chagrin of someone friendly with the feds.

20 posted on 03/12/2008 10:25:31 PM PDT by torchthemummy (W's Margin Of Victory In Florida 2000 - 537 / FL House Bill Number To Move Up Florida Primary - 537)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson