Posted on 11/18/2003 4:23:09 PM PST by scarface367
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have violated state money-laundering laws in the way he handled the money he used to buy the prescription drugs to which he was addicted, law enforcement officials in Florida and New York told ABCNEWS.
A conviction on such charges in Florida would be a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 30 years in prison.
Limbaugh returned to the airwaves this week after five weeks of rehabilitation for his admitted addiction to prescription painkillers.
His lawyer denied today there was any foundation for a money-laundering prosecution.
"There's no basis for these charges. He has not committed any acts of money laundering and he absolutely denies it," lawyer Roy Black told ABCNEWS. "I can assure you — and Rush assures the listeners to his radio station — when we can, we will tell the story, and he will tell it himself. Everybody will see what has really gone on here."
Limbaugh makes an estimated $35 million a year and had no shortage of legally earned money to the buy the painkillers to which he became addicted.
Authorities say they became aware two years ago, during an investigation of New York bank US Trust, that Limbaugh had taken between 30 and 40 cash withdrawals from his account in amounts just under $10,000.
Banks must file a report to the government if someone withdraws more than $10,000 at once.
Limbaugh's lawyers confirm that as part of US Trust's service, a bank employee personally delivered cash to Limbaugh at his New York studio in amounts of $9,900 or so.
"That in itself is a suspicious activity: They are structuring their transaction to avoid reporting to the government, and the bank is required to file with the federal government something called a suspicious activity report," said Jack Blum, an expert on financial crimes.
Limbaugh's lawyers say it was US Trust that suggested the arrangement. In July 2001 the bank paid a $10 million fine because of the Limbaugh transactions and many others like it.
Limbaugh's name was not made public at the time but officials told ABCNEWS details were forwarded to state and federal investigators in Florida.
"Now the problem will be: Did he then assist his drug supplier in hiding the proceeds from the government?" said Blum.
Limbaugh's lawyers say he did not do that and that he is being falsely accused by those who want to force him off the air.
Officials say a decision on whether to prosecute on money-laundering charges will be made in the next few weeks.
Why does this just absolutely crack me up??? (oops! maybe it's not even safe to say "crack me up")
I'm no expert either but it seems to me that the lawyer confirmed it because it was a perfectly legal activity and, since it was a service offered by the bank, easily confirmable by investigators anyhow. Why stonewall a legal activity? Rush and Black seem very confident of their position.
It sounds like the government (or at least the ABC reporter) is implying Rush used the money to finance the housekeeper for her illegal activities, i.e. money laundering. As Black says in the story: "There's no basis for these charges. He has not committed any acts of money laundering and he absolutely denies it. I can assure you — and Rush assures the listeners to his radio station — when we can, we will tell the story, and he will tell it himself. Everybody will see what has really gone on here."
Sorry, common sense isn't allowed in this case. :)
The analogy works, though the police don't considered it suspicious for you to drive 1 MPH below the speed limit unless you're near a bar at 2:00 AM. Lots of people drive that slowly, all the time.
Repeated cash withdrawals at just under the reporting limit are considered a "pattern of suspicious activity", and the bank is legally required to report it. Rush's bank didn't do that.
However when I hear people complain or criticize Ashcroft, I shake my head. He did not pass this. The House of Reps and the Senate did. By a large majority. And if memory serves, the act was not fully written and not too many had read was little was actually written.
The few that stood against it (Bob Barr comes to mind) were pooh-poohed by their colleagues.
Yeah, that's been around a long time. They're interested in how much you're taking out of the country too. I'm talking about the law that requires your bank to report withdrawals over $10,000. That's fairly new and I don't think it was passed by the current Congress. Seems it came up on FR during the Clinton regime.
Mine was doing 68 in a 70mph zone. I also got an extra hundred fine for structuring my driving habits to evade the law....
Rush bought illegal drugs. He repeatedly withdrew sums just under the amount requiring reporting. If it can be shown that that money was used to buy drugs, then he was clearly trying to hide the transactions. The criminal transactions.
Whether or not he gets off depends on whether he can find unscrupulous lawyers with your mentality who are willing and able to confuse the issue.
I'm sure he can.
Nope. That one goes back at least 20-25 years. I was a bank teller in the early 1980's, and it was in effect then.
BINGO ! They shouldn't consider it suspicious if you choose to avoid filling out government forms or advising some bureaucrat of what you're going to do with your own money. Lots of people carry large sums of cash on their person who have absolutely no intention of wrong doing.
Does it matter whether or not he's found gulty?
KA... BLEWEY!!!
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.