Authorities Eye Whether Rush Limbaugh Laundered Money Used to Pay for Drugs

ABC News ^ | Nov. 18 | Brian Ross

[malia]

"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!!!

[LittleJoe]

Give that man a silver dollar for having the first post that has the usual Libertarian buzz(no pun intended) word, WOD

ROFL!
And we'll give you a silver dollar for being the first to get in a Libertarian smear!

FACT: The money laundering charge they are speaking of is a law they enacted as part of the WOD.

[Petronski]

You're stoned right now, aren't you?

[PeteFromMontana]

We need a banker here for clarification, but I seem to remember there is a time element attached to the 10 grand as well.

[Petronski]

BOYCOTT DISNEY: a vortex of seductive evil™

[jmstein7]

I think Rush should sue for libel.

If they know that these statements are untrue (they have not been proven yet), then that is "actual malice".

[Prime Choice]

I don't understand why so many people are blaming the Patriot Act for this issue. If memory serves, the "watch list" caps on deposits and withdrawals was initiated under Reagan's administration.

Can't blame it all on Ashcroft, people.

[SeeRushToldU_So]

The laws that are on the books make people withdraw cash in amounts less than 10 grand. If the money is yours, why can't you do as you please with it?

The true test of weather you own something is: Being able to do what you want with the object you own.

[Normal4me]

So it is ok if Americans launder money for illegal reasons but not the terrorist? Huh? The warrants pursued by the Patriot act still requires a signature by a federal judge.

[dts32041]

You forgot to pay the taxes.

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.

[gdc314]

I think that the laundering charge is related to

"Now the problem will be: Did he then assist his drug supplier in hiding the proceeds from the government?" noted in the article...

[John H K]

If they know that these statements are untrue (they have not been proven yet), then that is "actual malice".

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.

[Agnes Heep]

And just the other day I was ticketed for driving 49 in a 50 mph zone.

[clintonh8r]

Just withdrawing the cash is not a big deal. The problem is not reporting the withdrawal on what's known as a currency transaction report. Then (according to the story) he used what are known as "structured transactions" where something less than $10,000 is withdrawn in order to avoid reporting on a systematic basis.

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......

[Shermy]

You're stoned right now, aren't you?

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.

[HiJinx]

IRS guidelines drive the cash transaction reporting requirement. Note from this article that although the legal limit is 10K, any combination of two or more related transactions (Joe gives Ideal Auto 3 payments of 3, 2, and 5 thousand dollars in cash) totalling 10k or more triggers the reporting requirement:

"Auto dealers are required to file with the IRS Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business, whenever they receive more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction (or two or more related transactions). Form 8300 is an information return that must be filed by the 15th day following the date of the cash transaction."

This is from http://news.cpamerica.org/gray2/wtu/taxupdate2.asp?a=269.

You can search www.irs.gov for "Cash Transaction Report" for the rest of the story.

[Mannaggia l'America]

I believe in Florida anything over $3500.00 has to be reported. I have never had $3500.00 to deposit or withdraw so....

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).

[Peace will be here soon]

Taxes !! Of course !! The way to get you when they can`t really get you !!

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Money Laundering Google definitions

Perhaps they are saying he laundered it to wash his prints off of it.

MAROONS!

[Petronski]

Isn't the language about amounts less than $10k something like 'structuring withdrawals to avoid the reporting requirement?'

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.