[Marianne]

Thank you for your reply.
. . .the fact that Rush then turned this money over to his supplier, but did not ensure that the supplier was reporting the income and paying the tax.
Why should Rush bear any responsibility for ensuring that his supplier reported the income and paid the tax?
Reminds me of the quote (can't remember the source), "You can judge the sanity of a society by the number of laws it has enacted."
Now you might not like this particular law. I, myself, find it an unacceptable intrusion into the right to be left alone. But the law is pretty clear, and US Trust broke it.
Clear, yes, but definitely an "unacceptable intrusion".
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington

[gridlock]

Actually, I should have phrased that differently. It was not so much that Rush did not ensure that the transaction was reported, as Rush deliberately did things to facilitate the illegal nature of the transaction.

Of course, when you're buying illegal drugs (or so I am lead to understand), you pay cash. This is illegal in as much as you are aiding you supplier in the criminal avoidance of the law. Of course, there is a much larger law being broken because it was illegal to purchase the drugs in the first place.

So it's not so much as Rush had a duty to ensure that money was reported, as he deliberately went out of his way to make sure that the money was not reported. This would be the basis of the prosecution, as stated by Blum.

That said, I still don't think it's right.