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.
If anyone money-launders they should be held accountable - that said - this article is so misleading!! and suggestive!!!
Remember ;the drug laws usually float around taxes.
You can have a controlled substance as long as you pay the taxes.
Much like machine guns manufactured prior to the 1994 weapons act, which was what the Waco 83 were accused of, not paying taxes.
Same for the ruby ridge confrontation, did not pay the tax.
You can do anything you wish in this country as long as you pay the tax.
According to the libertarian philosophy, you can do anything you wish as long as the excise tax and duty is paid, they just dislike the income tax.
I agree with this also, legalize the drug and then tax the bejesus out of it, but eliminate the income tax, as far as the rest of the platform is concerned maybe maybe not.
"Now the problem will be: Did he then assist his drug supplier in hiding the proceeds from the government?" noted in the article...
In the specific matter of drugs, Rush has done a fairly effective job of taking HIMSELF down; no need for a general media conspiracy.
I'm unaware of a single fact or rumor regarding his drug use that Rush has specifically refuted or denied, or one that has been shown to be false. And we of course know the basic charge he was addicted to painkillers turned out to be true.
It's a shame, but if this story is true it's big trouble, because it now becomes a federal case. The feds are very serious about currency transactions, and this is something that predates the Patriot Act by at least 5 years.
I hope this is not true about Rush, but he can't use the "bank suggested I do it" explanation. It just won't wash. Hoping the whole thing is untrue......
Nope.
But maybe I read too many of those articles about Patriot Act powers deployed under the guise of "money laundering" totally unconnected to "terrorism."
I'll admit, I thought the govt. sold me on the Patriot Act because it was only to address terrorism.
Oh, come on. Since you are FR, you must be a Republican and all Republicans are rich (not like the poor folks in the people's party, like the Striesand's and Kennedy's).
Perhaps they are saying he laundered it to wash his prints off of it.
MAROONS!
In other words, someone who somehow has a legal use for $9,000 each week wouldn't be subject to the 'structuring to avoid' language, but someone who needed $36k for a legal reason, and withdrew $9k from four different banks, would be 'structuring to avoid.'
Put still another way, the violation discussed here is 'structuring to avoid the reporting requirement' and not classic money laundering.
All of this would meet your original conclusion, that the bank must attempt to read intent.
I ask because I recall you work in criminal law, and I haven't reviewed these matters in ten years.
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.