Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert indicted by federal grand jury

Washington Post ^ | May 28 at 7:07 PM | By Mark Berman and Paul Kane

[Swordmaker]

Former House Speaker Hastert indicted on federal charges(1:13) Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert was indicted on federal charges Thursday, including lying to the FBI in an alleged effort to hide $3.5 million in payments to a person to conceal past misconduct. (Reuters) J. Dennis Hastert, the longest serving Republican speaker in the U.S. House, was indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges that he violated banking laws in a bid to pay $3.5 million because of “past misconduct” against an unnamed individual from their hometown west of Chicago.

Hastert, 73, who has been a high-paid lobbyist in Washington since his 2007 retirement, schemed to mask more than $950,000 in withdrawals from various accounts that violated federal banking laws that require disclosure of large cash transactions, according to a seven-page indictment delivered by a grand jury in Chicago.

The indictment did not spell out the exact nature of the “prior misconduct” by Hastert against the individual from his hometown, Yorkville, but noted that before entering politics in 1981, Hastert spent more than a decade as a teacher and wrestling coach at the local high school. The unnamed individual has known Hastert for most of that person’s life, the indictment states.

[Bogie]

The money should have never been in a bank in the first place.

[Ken H]

So it is now a crime to withdraw your own money ( of which taxes have already been paid )if you do it in amounts just under $10,000.

A legacy from the early years of the drug war. Hastert was a big supporter, so I'm sure he'll understand =>

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (or BSA, or otherwise known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act) requires financial institutions in the United States to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering.

Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

[MarchonDC09122009]

True.
However recent news has it that Obola’s DOJ have instructed banks to report on any withdrawals amounting to $5000 or more.
Not just cash withdrawls.
All withdrawls.
And remember, any repeated transfers, or withdrawls of less than $5K or $10K, are considered suspicious “structured” transactions designed to mislead law enforcement, and/or avoid taxes.
The Federal gov’t has nailed a lot of innocence people for “structuring”, and confiscated entire bank accounts of businesses and individuals.
USA and USSR are reaching parity for institutional corruption, moral bankruptcy and oppressing it’s citizens.

[stormer]

Dead girl - live boy.

[stylin19a]

I was thinking the same thing. You said it more elegantly than I would have.

I wonder if the “recipient” had\has to pay taxes ?
I wonder how these payments were treated ? as a gift ?

[Jack Black]

It's a banking regulation that says that it's illegal to take money out of or put money into a bank in under $10,000 increments if the intent of doing so is to evade the mandatory reporting of transactions involving over $10,000 to the Treasury.

That's not exactly "wire transfer", but maybe you were just using shorthand.

[TheCipher]

Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

Which was my point. He wasn't purchasing negotiable instruments such as bonds or transferring the money overseas. There was no tax evasion since the money in the account would have been reported to the IRS. As with all federal laws, they leave a vague section that they can interpret as they wish - in this case "criminal activities" So it is now considered a criminal activity to withdraw your own money in amounts just short of $10,000.

By the way, this is the law that is causing US citizens overseas to renounce their citizenship. This law requires US persons that have an account overseas that has a value of $10,000 or more to file a FBAR form every year reporting the account and how much money is in it. Failure to file the form results in a $10,000 fine and 5 years in prison for each year it is not filed. The problem is the IRS never informs those citizens living overseas that they have to file the form. Thus those that had not filed for a number of years - through no fault of their own- face prison time and financial disaster just for failure to file a form even though there were no taxes owed on the money in the accounts. As shown in the act, this act was designed to capture those living in the US hiding money in overseas accounts.To US citizens living overseas, they consider the account they are using a local account, not an overseas account. This money is legally earned money, which in many cases no US taxes were owed. Add to that the limit of $10,000 was set in 1970, which adjusted to 2015 dollars should be about $50,000. Yet the IRS is using this law for which it was not originally intended, to go after US citizens living overseas. What is telling is that the form is not filed with the IRS. It is filed with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. So, just in filing the form they consider you a criminal.

[Catsrus]

We should include Eric Holder and BO in this category as well. And, oh yeah - Lois Lehrner and most of the obama administration.

[Ken H]

There was no tax evasion since the money in the account would have been reported to the IRS.

Doesn't matter. Structuring is a crime in and of itself under federal law.

As with all federal laws, they leave a vague section that they can interpret as they wish - in this case "criminal activities" So it is now considered a criminal activity to withdraw your own money in amounts just short of $10,000.

A single cash transaction (deposit or withdrawal) of $9,000 is perfectly legal.

It's when you conduct another $9,000 transaction a few days later to avoid the reporting requirement that you run afoul of the law. The law would consider that a single transaction of $18,000

Eliot Spitzer got caught that way.

[Hugin]

Once again...don’t talk to police. He could have saved himself a lot of grief by watching this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?vpolice6wXkI4t7nuc

[Ken H]

Actually, that's not how Spitzer got caught. He had requested 2 or 3 wire tranfers of $5,000 be sent to a company associated with a prostitution ring, and without using his name and account number. That is what raised eyebrows.

[Ann Archy]

What did he do and why isn’t the extortionist indicted also?? Oh, let me guess.....because the extortionist is a Democrat, and I’ll bet it’s a female.

[freeangel]

I think heis larceny is a drop in the bucket compared to the clintoons. Where’s that investigation ad charges?

[jch10]

Wasn’t he a former teacher? Where did he get that kind of money? Oh wait! He was a very well paid, long serving Congressman. I see.

[Nanny7]

I’m more interested in “Individual A”, the blackmailer. Who was he?

[pepsionice]

I would suggest this....whoever was blackmailing him....is in hot water with IRS now and will have to report the ‘income’. As much as they wanted to screw over Hastert and get at his ‘loot’.....they will have to face some consequences.

[Resolute Conservative]

Explains how a teacher goes on to be a multi-millionaire after being elected to office, like so many do.

[central_va]

He should have funneled the payoff thru the Xlinton Foundation. Hitlery would have clipped maybe 10%, not a bad deal.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

What did he do and why isn’t the extortionist indicted also?? Oh, let me guess.....because the extortionist is a Democrat, and I’ll bet it’s a female.

Unless that extortionist is paying taxes on that money, shouldn't they be charged with tax evasion?

[Red Badger]

I wonder if Hastert had a ‘Jerry Sandusky’ problem?.............