[TCats]

I think he was fingered by any number of very bitter, powerful enemies he made on Wall St. Whoever else gets outed in this thing is just so much, unlucky collateral damage.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

****I had switched channels following Jeffrey Toobin's botched explanation of the money-laundering offense known as "structuring" — the cash transaction amount that triggers the reporting requirement is $10K, not, as Toobin stated, $5K.)****

That's pretty bad that Tobin does not know that. Anyone who works for a bank or financial institution has to take a test every few years where they need to know what the Patriot Act requires. And everyone knows (and I do mean EVERYONE) that the figure is 10K not 5K.

[Wiggins]

As far as I'm concerned Spitzer being done in is a patriot act. Good riddance to trash.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

When someone calls a bank asking that their name be removed from wire transfers, that will get a SAR created.
This has nothing to do with the patriot act or bankers looking to get back at Spitzer. It was that moronic act got him busted.

[TomGuy]

the cash transaction amount that triggers the reporting requirement is $10K, not, as Toobin stated, $5K.

IIRC, the old figure was $10k, but under the Patriot Act, the figure was revised to $5k.

Anti-Money Laundering Initiatives Under the USA Patriot Act

Proposed Rule for Broker Dealers Broader than those for Banks. For reasons that have not been disclosed, the proposed rule for broker-dealers does not exactly parallel the existing rule for depository institutions and, in many ways, the proposed rule includes reporting requirements that are broader than the requirements for banks. For example, under the existing rules, a depository institution must submit a SAR for any activity that involves at least $5,000 and: (i) any known or suspected violation of federal law; (ii) a suspicious transaction related to money laundering; or (iii) a violation of the BSA. Under the proposed rule applicable to broker-dealers, the reporting requirement is triggered by "any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation."17 Thus, a broker-dealer would be required to report a possible violation of state law, whereas a depository institution would not have such a requirement, assuming the violation did not involve suspicious activity relating to money laundering or a violation of the BSA. There are other differences between the two reporting requirements and these inconsistencies have been identified during the comment period for the proposed rule, which ended March 1, 2002.18 The final regulations are due no later than July 7, 2002 and will take effect 180 days after publication.

[HIDEK6]

I heard that Haliburton had something to do with it.