Sec. 5331. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business
`(a) COIN AND CURRENCY RECEIPTS OF MORE THAN $10,000- Any person--
`(1) who is engaged in a trade or business; and
`(2) who, in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in coins or currency in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions),
shall file a report described in subsection (b) with respect to such transaction (or related transactions) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may, by regulation, prescribe.
`(b) FORM AND MANNER OF REPORTS- A report is described in this subsection if such report--
`(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe;
`(2) contains--
`(A) the name and address, and such other identification information as the Secretary may require, of the person from whom the coins or currency was received;
`(B) the amount of coins or currency received;
`(C) the date and nature of the transaction; and
`(D) such other information, including the identification of the person filing the report, as the Secretary may prescribe.
`(c) EXCEPTIONS-
`(1) AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to amounts received in a transaction reported under section 5313 and regulations prescribed under such section.
`(2) TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES- Except to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsection (a) shall not apply to any transaction if the entire transaction occurs outside the United States.
`(d) CURRENCY INCLUDES FOREIGN CURRENCY AND CERTAIN MONETARY INSTRUMENTS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, the term `currency' includes--
`(A) foreign currency; and
`(B) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any monetary instrument (whether or not in bearer form) with a face amount of not more than $10,000.
`(2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION- Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to any check drawn on the account of the writer in a financial institution referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (J), (K), (R), or (S) of section 5312(a)(2).'.
(b) PROHIBITION ON STRUCTURING TRANSACTIONS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5324 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
`(b) DOMESTIC COIN AND CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING NONFINANCIAL TRADES OR BUSINESSES- No person shall, for the purpose of evading the report requirements of section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section--
`(1) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to fail to file a report required under section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section;
`(2) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to file a report required under section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
`(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with 1 or more nonfinancial trades or businesses.'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) The heading for subsection (a) of section 5324 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting `INVOLVING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS' after `TRANSACTIONS'.
(B) Section 5317(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking `5324(b)' and inserting `5324(c)'.
(c) DEFINITION OF NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5312(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
`(4) NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS- The term `nonfinancial trade or business' means any trade or business other than a financial institution that is subject to the reporting requirements of section 5313 and regulations prescribed under such section.'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) Section 5312(a)(3)(C) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking `section 5316,' and inserting `sections 5333 and 5316,'.
(B) Subsections (a) through (f) of section 5318 of title 31, United States Code, and sections 5321, 5326, and 5328 of such title are each amended--
(i) by inserting `or nonfinancial trade or business' after `financial institution' each place such term appears; and
(ii) by inserting `or nonfinancial trades or businesses' after `financial institutions' each place such term appears.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5332 (as added by section 112 of this title) the following new item:
`5331. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business.'.
(f) REGULATIONS- Regulations which the Secretary determines are necessary to implement this section shall be published in final form before the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
Frankly, only a fool would trust the federal government with power over any right. The duty of the federal government is to enforce our rights, and to take none of them away.
The government can, however, violate the rights of non-citizens in any manner it pleases, since non-citizens have no rights under our constitution. And until the government expels all foreign nationals and secures our borders, and repeals all law that infringe the rights of citizens, it deserves no respect.
Now that is a JOKE!!! Do you honestly believe any of these provisions will sunset once in place? Oh, no of course not. Sometime in the next 4 years, when no one is paying attention, there will be a rider attached to some bill at some time stating that all provisions are in place permanently.
I guess it's time to bring out the ol' magic markers again and start striking off parts of the Constitution. But this time the fourth amendment to the Constitution is gone. Does that not strike a little fear into any of you 'safety first, we're scared' statists? Does anyone remember anything about the Founders of this nation except little catch phrases, that when misread under a full moon on every third Thursday, support a poster's points for one EMPIRE? My ancestors did at one time, God bless them, and they were the last to fight for the Constitution, yes for the Constitution and for what it meant. But the statists, the biggest god awful bunch of one Union, strong federal government bottom dwellers have brought this upon your heads and ours to boot. We might as well just tear the Constitution up right now and replace it with the Pledge of Allegiance (written by a socialist preacher) and whatever else we would be expected to recite. Than we would be the sheep the Founders never wanted us to become.
Thanks a lot
Did you see that little detail that says any investigation started is not subject to the sunset? Didnt think so. That means if the day before the sunset takes effect and someone decides anyone they choose 'may' need investigating they can take as long as they like. So 05 is not a sunset. 2005 is a long way off and the definition of 'terrorist' is all in who is defining it.
I'll bet you a buck they don't.
. I realize that after 8 years of Janet Reno abusing almost everything she and the rest of X42's administration touched, It's hard to trust anyone in the Government. But I will wait and see before I condemn George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, I think they have our safety in mind and not stripping away any of the freedoms we now enjoy.
There was some old dead white guy named Franklin who said something once about a government who gave itself more authority and power with its populaces' "safety" in mind...
You can learn a lot from some of those old dead white guys.
By Scott Shane
Sun Staff
Originally published October 29, 2001 Inside, the judges of America's secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, rule on requests to tap the phones, bug the rooms and break into the houses of terror suspects on U.S. soil.
With President Bush's signing Friday of sweeping new anti-terror legislation, the secret court's jurisdiction has been widely expanded. Attorney General John Ashcroft said he would order investigators to immediately use the new wiretap powers to track down those responsible for the Sept. 11 and anthrax attacks and to prevent new acts of terror.
With authorities on highest alert, the FBI and the National Security Agency are casting a wide surveillance net, targeting suspicious foreigners in the United States. FISA court warrants are a key tool, because they can be issued on the basis of far less evidence than traditional criminal warrants.
Previously, the secret court could issue warrants only when the collection of foreign intelligence was "the purpose" of the bug or search. The new law allows the court to act when intelligence is "a significant purpose," allowing criminal investigation as a simultaneous goal.
Advocates of the change say it merely updates the original 1978 FISA law to cope with terrorism. Intelligence surveillance often grows into criminal cases, as wiretaps reveal plans for terrorism or other crimes. The new law merely acknowledges that fact, they say.
Stewart A. Baker, a Washington attorney who served as NSA general counsel from 1992 to 1994, says the expanded authority of the FISA court is justified and timely.
"Now there's almost no national security problem that doesn't have a law enforcement aspect," Baker says. "We're all aware there's a foreign terrorist gang operating inside the U.S."
Civil liberties concerns
But the court's new powers, which expire in 2005 if not renewed by Congress, disturb some civil libertarians. They say the change weakens constitutional protections by enabling the FBI to circumvent the requirements for criminal wiretap warrants.
"I'm as afraid of terrorism as the next person," says David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who opposed the changes. "But if we give up our principles, what are we fighting for?"
Critics such as Cole were already unhappy with the court's absolute secrecy and history of granting virtually all warrant requests the FBI and spy agencies seek. Its scorecard since 1979: 12,178 warrants approved, 1 denied.
Even before the law passed, the FISA court had never been busier. Last year it approved a record 1,005 warrants for eavesdropping and covert entries, twice the number in 1993 and more than double the 479 wiretap warrants issued by federal judges nationwide in all criminal cases. Legal observers say that record will be shattered.
"We're likely to see an explosion in the number of foreign intelligence surveillance authorizations," says David L. Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group in Washington.
There is no way of knowing for certain what goes on in that sixth-floor chamber. The annual number of warrants applied for and granted is the only record made public. "No one knows very much about the FISA court because it's so secret," says Cole.
The court gets no mention on the U.S. judiciary system's voluminous Web sites. "It's a court that would a lot rather operate, and can operate more efficiently, without a lot of media attention," said David A. Sellers, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. At The Sun's request, however, he did fax a list of the seven FISA court judges. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth and three other judges turned down interview requests.
The court's members, appointed to seven-year terms by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, are federal judges who work most of the time in their home states on criminal and civil cases. They come to Washington to sit in FISA court in two-week rotations, working alone to review warrant requests.
Despite its secrecy, the court has surfaced in dozens of important criminal cases, from the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 to the prosecutions of John A. Walker Jr., Aldrich H. Ames and Robert P. Hanssen for spying.
One 1998 espionage case, in which a married couple were charged with spying for East Germany, revealed the intensive surveillance possible with the court's sanction.
The couple, Theresa Squillicote and Kurt Strand, were the targets of telephone taps, an electronic bug in their bedroom, two clandestine searches of their house and a download of files from their home computer. Agents even listened in while they talked to their psychotherapists, according to documents made public when their lawyers unsuccessfully challenged the FISA statute.
Despite its broad application in such cases, Bush administration officials decided after the Sept. 11 attacks that the FISA court needed more power. They may have been spurred by an episode that has tormented investigators by raising the possibility that the attacks might have been prevented.
A month before the attacks, FBI agents wanted to seek a FISA warrant against a Moroccan-born French citizen, Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested Aug. 17 on immigration charges after seeking training to fly -- but not land -- jetliners. But FBI supervisors decided that there was insufficient evidence under the FISA law to seek a warrant, according to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.
Now, having tracked phone calls and wire transfers between Moussaoui and the Sept. 11 hijackers, authorities believe Moussaoui may have planned to become the "20th hijacker," though he has not been charged in the plot.
Wider court powers
It's unclear whether the changes in the FISA law would have made it easier to target Moussaoui, but the changes that took effect Friday increase the secret court's powers. The new measure lengthens the term of its warrants from 45 to 120 days, with extensions permitted for up to a year. Warrants now target a person rather than a specific telephone number, a change Ashcroft said is necessary in an era of disposable cell phones.
Most of the objections, however, concern the blurring of the distinction between criminal and intelligence warrants.
To get a criminal warrant, investigators must convince a judge that there is "probable cause" to believe the target has committed a crime. For a FISA warrant, by contrast, they must present evidence only that the person is "an agent of a foreign power," such as a foreign nation or terrorist group.
"The concern is, you're basically obliterating a very important distinction in the law," says Sobel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "FISA was created for the most part for surveillance of foreign embassies. It lacks meaningful oversight and public accountability. There was no plan to use it for criminal prosecution."
Ironically, when it was created in 1978, the FISA court was intended to provide some protection against intelligence wiretaps, which previously were performed at the whim of the president and attorney general. A congressional investigation had disclosed that NSA had intercepted the communications of thousands of U.S. citizens targeted because of their political activities, from actress Jane Fonda to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
The 1978 law forced the FBI and NSA to get the court's permission for spying on U.S. soil, whether on foreign citizens or Americans suspected of spying. A 1995 amendment required a FISA warrant if agents wanted to break in to search private premises.
"It was a significant improvement over prior practice," says Steven Aftergood, who studies intelligence and secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. He noted that in the 1999 investigation of Wen Ho Lee, a U.S. nuclear scientist suspected of spying for China, Justice Department attorneys declined to ask the FISA court for a warrant because they didn't think they could justify it.
"At that point, I was sold on the argument that FISA protects the civil liberties of innocent Americans," Aftergood says.
In his only public statement on the FISA court, Chief Judge Lamberth, a federal judge in Washington, disputed its reputation for never seeing a warrant application it didn't like.
Lamberth told an American Bar Association breakfast meeting in 1997 that he resented the charge that the court is a "rubber stamp for the executive branch." While applications may not be rejected, he said, they are closely scrutinized and may be revised before being approved.
"I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what's going to be done and why," he said. "I have pen-and-inked changes myself on the things."
Lamberth said he couldn't imagine a better system for balancing intelligence secrecy and privacy rights. Then he added a comment that seems prescient today.
"The age of spying is not over," he said. "And the age of terrorism is just dawning."