Rush: I'm No Money Launderer

NewsMax ^ | 11/19/03 | Limbacher

[sausageseller]

Kimba Woods help were not contractors by IRS definition. They were employees.

Try again.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

My goodness you're sure a nosy little bugger when it comes to other people's money. Suffice to say I was adequately protected.

[veronica]

"From that moment on, every cash withdrawal I've made has been for over $10,000."

:) -- Must be nice.

Sue the pants off the bustards Rush!!

[Principled]

Now do you feel better?

Easy does it, Mad one. If you reread the post you will see that we agree. Perhaps in your haste to point out the obvious truth about big brother, you thought I was on the other side of the issue?

BTW Go DAWGS!

[uncbob]

I built a house recently (admittedly not millions) and paid some of the subcontractors in cash. Where do I go to turn myself in? Or will a government re-education center be sufficient?

Exactly

Check any bill in your pocket it says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" That is right on the US currency

Who the hell has the right to tell you you have to use a banks service in the form of checks or credit cards
That is tatamount to forcing you to use any private business

[Holly_P]

As a mother of three, I launder money all the time. It doesn't amount to much but, finders, keepers

If the money wasn't yours until you found it, I hope you are declaring it on your 1040....I am sure most Freepers would.

[chouli]

You had receipts to prove it too, right? That ought to take care of big brother.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Check any bill in your pocket it says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" That is right on the US currency Who the hell has the right to tell you you have to use a banks service in the form of checks or credit cards That is tatamount to forcing you to use any private business

There is no requirement to use a bank; it is legal to use cash; but under some circumstances, the law requires that the person who receives the cash report that fact to the Government. As I pointed out above, those laws were enacted by Congress at the urgings of Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush (Sr.), on the rationale that if we investigate anybody dealing in large amounts of cash, we'll be able to catch the drug dealers better.

[webstersII]

"The relevant concept here is "structuring", which is engaging in a significant pattern of structuring one's
financial transactions so as to avoid triggering various financial reporting requirements by financial
institutions."

Unfortunately, there is no objective definition of 'structuring'. The definition remains subjective, which means they can make it anything they want to, and consequently they will have to know what you used the money for in order to clear your name. This is called 'guilty until proven innocent'.

[k2blader]

He said the bank asked him to do it to "reduce paperwork".

I can imagine how such a simple thing could help reduce paperwork.

But of course, birdbrained busibodies appear obligated to sniff around, speculating about what a man, who happens to be very wealthy, does legally with his own money.

[Steve0113]

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held (Ratzlaf v. United States, opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) that you were not guilty of "structuring" unless you knew that structuring was illegal; the law was immediately amended (thank you, President Bush) to make it illegal to "structure" even if you didn't know it was illegal to do so.

You might want to double-check who was president in 1994.

[tbpiper]

Sounds like you are grasping for straws there in your defense of him. Nice try though.

Now, let's see. The trip wire for an investigation is $10,000. So why would they be looking at anything other than tha, hmmmmm?? So maybe you dangle some bait for them in the form of $9995.00 transaction, they get all excited, spend a bunch of money on an investigation and come up with nothing. Sounds like great fun! Besides, I was offering a 'what if' answer just for fun. I wasn't trying to defend anybody. You reacted like the typical Rush hater. You're just grasping a straws for some kind of accusation. Give it a rest.

[Sloth]

He really will need to explain those kinds of cash withdrawals, in light of how they look.

Uh, 1.) he did, and 2.) why? If I was that rich I'd keep my cash withdrawals under $10K, too.

[SpinyNorman]

When you do millions in remodelling, do you pay in cash? And if the contractor asks for cash only, that should send up red flags.

I built a house recently (admittedly not millions) and paid some of the subcontractors in cash. Where do I go to turn myself in? Or will a government re-education center be sufficient?

I agree completely!! I built a house some years back, and I got a lot more for my money paying "under the table." Everybody, with the exception of the government, is happy. I already pay around 50% of my income to the government, and anything I can do to minimize that and keep money in my own pocket, I will do.

Afterall, the Kennedy family stiffed the state of MA for Rose's death taxes, so I have some big time precedent!

What Rush does with his money is his business, and the burden of the government is to prove something nefarious. Insinuations by ABC are just yellow journalism. Is this reporting or slamming? It is an old story too. What took these crack reporters so long? If Rush did something illegal back in 2001, wouldn't HE be paying the fine instead of the bank?

Way too much speculation here, with ample opportunity for trolls to do their sniping.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

If you were that rich, you wouldn't worry about it.

[k2blader]

If the drug and money laundering laws shouldn't apply to Rush, they shouldn't apply to anyone.

Why single out Rush? Wouldn't it make more sense to replace his name in that sentence with "whomever"?

But for the purpose of argument, tell us exactly where he broke such laws and got away with it, and I may agree with you.

[Lurking Libertarian]

You might want to double-check who was president in 1994

Whoops! You're right, I'm wrong!

[SpinyNorman]

"The relevant concept here is "structuring", which is engaging in a significant pattern of structuring one's financial transactions so as to avoid triggering various financial reporting requirements by financial institutions."

So what? Is there a requirement that you make withdrawals over $10K? No, there isn't. If the government wants to examine "structured" accounts, he onus is on them to show that it is done to hide something. Why would anyone NOT avoid financial reporting requirements if it is legal to do so? It isn't like they don't have copies of his W-2's!

[chouli]

You don't turn yourself in as you didn't do anything wrong unless you didn't fill out the form if you paid for something with cash that was 10 grand or more. You let the IRS do its job like it is supposed too. Or you can give the workers a 1099 or whatever form with their cash and send one to the IRS too then you've done your duty.

[Sloth]

Untrue.