If only the rest of our government officials could be busted on it, too. Maybe they'd realize then why parts of it are such a bad idea.

you mean the patriot act that we've been repeatedly assured is ONLY used to catch terrorists?

What's more patriotic than an elected official using his power and wealth to score some hot pussy?

USA USA USA USA!

John Ashcroft stated, in sworn Senate testimony, that the PATRIOT Act would only be used to go after people who were not U.S. citizens.

They began ranking the risk levels of their customers-on a scale of zero to 100-based on complex formulas that included the credit rating, assets and profession of the account holder.

I want to know my score?

Another element of the formulas: (insert Fark account name here)

doublesecretprobation: you mean the patriot act that we've been repeatedly assured is ONLY used to catch terrorists?

To the Bush Administration, most liberals and Democrats are terrorists.

Way to go guys, another terrorist caught. Go America.

I am completely shocked that our government would use a law in a way that is contrary to it's stated purpose.

I'm not sure that even Alanis Morissette could explain why this would be considered ironic.

doublesecretprobation: you mean the patriot act that we've been repeatedly assured is ONLY used to catch terrorists?

*sigh* Yes. That's the one. We tried. We failed.

Funny, how the act that has caught exactly ZERO terrorists is used once again to monitor the private activity of some dirty librul.

As we say in the software industry, "Working as intended".

NPR was reporting this in detail the day after the scandal broke. Newsweek needs to listen to them more often.

I'd say it worked exactly as intended. This particular element of the act obliges banks to pay particular attention to public figures and monitor them for suspicious cash transactions, in the hope that the government may identify people in authority who may have been criminally compromised. And they found one.

While Spitzer may not have actually been blackmailed yet into granting political favors-really, it was only a matter of time before someone got wind of his "adventures" and tried to use it against him.

Wait! The Patriot Act is only supposed to be used for spying on brown people! Bring back Spritzer!

BravadoGT: I'd say it worked exactly as intended.

TFA: In the fine print were provisions that gave the Treasury Department authority to demand more information from banks about their customers' financial transactions. Congress wanted to help the Feds identify terrorist money launderers. But Treasury went further.

Wait, you mean that the poorly-sketched, quickly-enacted reactionary law intended to give the executive branch unquestioned, sweeping powers to spy in order to route out terrorists is being used in a way it wasn't originally intended,extending those powers to spy our own citizens? Wow, nobody EVER saw this coming!

Has anyone mentioned that the Patriot Act was intended only to catch brown people who want us blowed up?

Cuz that's what the government told me.

And the government doesn't lie.

Relatively Obscure: But Treasury went further.

Legal question, what gives the departments of the executive branch the authority to give fines and enforce regulations which have not been put into law by Congress? My understanding was that the Executive only executed the laws passed by the legislative branch.

So basically what this article says is that the Patriot Act turned all banks and telephone companies into extensions of the CIA.

W

T

F

This is exactly why you can't ever give up your rights & power to the government.

They always, always, always, expand upon that power.

Before everyone get's all paranoid about bank monitoring like it's some new phenomenon, they should realize the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires a Currency Transaction Report for every cash deposit over $10k, has been in place since 1970. The Anti-Money Laundering measures in the Patriot act would most likely have been passed anyway, as they had been previously proposed to Congress. They were all thrown in the same bill because terrorist financing and money laundering are so closely linked (they're essentially the opposite of each other).

And yes, big brother is watching you masturbate.

hovis: The Anti-Money Laundering measures in the Patriot act would most likely have been passed anyway

Oh, well then. I guess it's totally cool.

FTFA:

"The SAR was not itself evidence that Spitzer had committed a crime. But it made the Feds curious enough to follow the money."

In this case, apparently he did commit a crime, but how many times, I wonder does the government snoop around when in fact there is no crime committed. All I have to say is it's about time republicans stop pretending that they are somehow patriotic and love their civil liberties. You aren't fooling anyone anymore. Thanks for the patriot act assholes. Now I can't even pay for donkey porn on the internet without fearing its going to trip a wire and someone in a fed building somewhere is going to show all his buddies.

Wow, epic freaking fail. SARs are required for certain transactions over $5k pursuant to 61 FR 4337. That in itself is meaningless except when you consider that the regulation hasn't been amended since February 5, 1996. Everyone claiming this is proof of how horrid the Patriot Act is should go back to your old talking points.

61 FR 4337

quizybuck: Wow, epic freaking fail. SARs are required for certain transactions over $5k pursuant to 61 FR 4337. That in itself is meaningless except when you consider that the regulation hasn't been amended since February 5, 1996. Everyone claiming this is proof of how horrid the Patriot Act is should go back to your old talking points.

Great! Now explain how that applies to a situation where that didn't happen.

It did happen...

Spitzer got caught doing the most basic form of "money laundering", structuring. He took out more than $10k in a day to pay for some hoes, and obviously must've split up the deposits to try to avoid reporting it to the IRS. That's the irony of the whole situation. A so-called white collar crime expert getting caught doing amateur sh*t.

It's OK. Homeland Security Alert Level was pink that day.

Relatively Obscure: quizybuck: Wow, epic freaking fail. SARs are required for certain transactions over $5k pursuant to 61 FR 4337. That in itself is meaningless except when you consider that the regulation hasn't been amended since February 5, 1996. Everyone claiming this is proof of how horrid the Patriot Act is should go back to your old talking points.

Great! Now explain how that applies to a situation where that didn't happen.

this

hovis: It did happen...

Spitzer got caught doing the most basic form of "money laundering", structuring. He took out more than $10k in a day to pay for some hoes, and obviously must've split up the deposits to try to avoid reporting it to the IRS. That's the irony of the whole situation. A so-called white collar crime expert getting caught doing amateur sh*t.

Structuring charges will never stick and probably not even be brought. Try again.

smooshie: doublesecretprobation: you mean the patriot act that we've been repeatedly assured is ONLY used to catch terrorists?

To the Bush Administration, most liberals and Democrats are terrorists.

Funny, I've been biatching about this since the scandal first hit the media. We sell money orders were I work, so we have to know the provisions of the "Patriot" Act....as soon as I heard that it was a SAR that originally led to his arrest I started telling people that it was in fact, the "Patriot" Act that nabbed this evil doer.

Worse still, the "Patriot" Act actually says that every employee of a MSB has to become essentially an unpaid federal agent, and be able to identify and report "suspicious" persons or activities.

Most Americans wouldn't know what Patriotism was if it secretely nabbed them, transported them to Syria and water-boarded them!

wait, what?

3 G's: Funny, I've been biatching about this since the scandal first hit the media. We sell money orders were I work, so we have to know the provisions of the "Patriot" Act....as soon as I heard that it was a SAR that originally led to his arrest I started telling people that it was in fact, the "Patriot" Act that nabbed this evil doer.

Worse still, the "Patriot" Act actually says that every employee of a MSB has to become essentially an unpaid federal agent, and be able to identify and report "suspicious" persons or activities.

Most Americans wouldn't know what Patriotism was if it secretely nabbed them, transported them to Syria and water-boarded them!

wait, what?

Yep. I did one too many electronic transfers ( of about 50 bucks) too and from my savings account and it got locked due to the "Patriot Act". I had to go in in person and sign forms to egt it released.

People who support this really aren't Americans except in name.

What gives you that idea?

Structuring isn't very hard to prove. If Spitzer's at Bank X's Branch in Lower Manhattan at 11:00 AM taking out $9,500 in cash and Bank X's Branch in Brooklyn at 11:30 AM taking out $3,000 in cash, the intent would be pretty clear, especially since he's the former Attorney General in the US capital of white collar crime. That being said, it's pointless to argue the validity of the specific structuring charge against him without knowing the details of the SAR which the charges are based upon. If it's weak, so's the case.

I actually agree with you on the fact that the charges won't stick. They were more of a tool to leverage his resignation. Now that he's out've office, he'll probably cop a plea somehow.

could Spitzer sue the bank that ratted him out?

hovis: What gives you that idea?

Structuring isn't very hard to prove. If Spitzer's at Bank X's Branch in Lower Manhattan at 11:00 AM taking out $9,500 in cash and Bank X's Branch in Brooklyn at 11:30 AM taking out $3,000 in cash, the intent would be pretty clear, especially since he's the former Attorney General in the US capital of white collar crime. That being said, it's pointless to argue the validity of the specific structuring charge against him without knowing the details of the SAR which the charges are based upon. If it's weak, so's the case.

I actually agree with you on the fact that the charges won't stick. They were more of a tool to leverage his resignation. Now that he's out've office, he'll probably cop a plea somehow.

HArd to prove he was breaking up the payments to specifically hide them. Real hard.

Look, I am not defending this dick. He is a weasle. BUT these laws are kinda going too far. We are getting inugly territory here in the US. The 4 others in the ring are up on Mann Act changes, which is totally bogus polically used act through history. Just smells bad.

Relatively Obscure: Great! Now explain how that applies to a situation where that didn't happen.

The investigateve authorities obtained the information discussed in the article from a SAR filed by the bank because a staggered transaction that looked like an attempt to evade the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Because the reg and the Bank Secrecy Act both predate the USA PATRIOT Act, the article was wrong. I'm not sure how to better spell it out.

quizybuck: Relatively Obscure: Great! Now explain how that applies to a situation where that didn't happen.

The investigateve authorities obtained the information discussed in the article from a SAR filed by the bank because a staggered transaction that looked like an attempt to evade the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Because the reg and the Bank Secrecy Act both predate the USA PATRIOT Act, the article was wrong. I'm not sure how to better spell it out.

Actually, this is true.

satchel13: I'm not sure that even Alanis Morissette could explain why this would be considered ironic.

Irony: The use of words to mean something other than their literal intention.

ie: The Administration says that the Patriot Act will only be used to take down non-American citizens and Terrorists, when what they meant was, "We'll use this to take down whoever we damn well please. Citizen or not. Terrorist or not."

Good. Because the Act was only for terrorists, not people having illegal sex for money. Clearly he was a terrorist and should be tortured in an undisclosed location. That might be something he would enjoy though.

America is losing itself.

HArd to prove he was breaking up the payments to specifically hide them. Real hard.

It doesn't have to be specifically for any reason. All they have to prove is that Spitzer knew about the Bank Secrecy Act threshold (which he had to in his profession) and that he took out more than a total of $10k in cash in one day by splitting up withdrawals into amounts below $10k. Just taking out more than $10k in cash with the intent to avoid CTR reporting is enough to go to jail. But typically, it's not a crime people get charged with very often. It's the white collar crime version of jaywalking.

quizybuck: The investigateve authorities obtained the information discussed in the article from a SAR filed by the bank because a staggered transaction that looked like an attempt to evade the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Because the reg and the Bank Secrecy Act both predate the USA PATRIOT Act, the article was wrong. I'm not sure how to better spell it out.


But that's not what the article says.

It says these things:

The Patriot Act gave the FBI new powers to snoop on suspected terrorists. In the fine print were provisions that gave the Treasury Department authority to demand more information from banks about their customers' financial transactions. Congress wanted to help the Feds identify terrorist money launderers. But Treasury went further. It issued stringent new regulations that required banks themselves to look for unusual transactions (such as odd patterns of cash withdrawals or wire transfers) and submit SARs-Suspicious Activity Reports-to the government.
[...]
The new scrutiny resulted in an explosion of SARs, from 204,915 in 2001 to 1.23 million last year.

Also, the Bank Secrecy Act was Amended by the USA-PATRIOT Act, for a number of related matters.

Bah, I screwed up the last blockquote. That last line is mine.

hovis: HArd to prove he was breaking up the payments to specifically hide them. Real hard.

It doesn't have to be specifically for any reason. All they have to prove is that Spitzer knew about the Bank Secrecy Act threshold (which he had to in his profession) and that he took out more than a total of $10k in cash in one day by splitting up withdrawals into amounts below $10k. Just taking out more than $10k in cash with the intent to avoid CTR reporting is enough to go to jail. But typically, it's not a crime people get charged with very often. It's the white collar crime version of jaywalking.

This isn't my understanding of it or what I've read. They have to prove he was taking out little chunks to specifically avoid triggering the SARs. If he claims he was simply taking $4000 dollars 6 times a week because he needed 6 (fill in whatever wonderful sex act costs 4k here) a week, no structuring.

Relatively Obscure: quizybuck: The investigateve authorities obtained the information discussed in the article from a SAR filed by the bank because a staggered transaction that looked like an attempt to evade the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Because the reg and the Bank Secrecy Act both predate the USA PATRIOT Act, the article was wrong. I'm not sure how to better spell it out.


But that's not what the article says.

It says these things:


The Patriot Act gave the FBI new powers to snoop on suspected terrorists. In the fine print were provisions that gave the Treasury Department authority to demand more information from banks about their customers' financial transactions. Congress wanted to help the Feds identify terrorist money launderers. But Treasury went further. It issued stringent new regulations that required banks themselves to look for unusual transactions (such as odd patterns of cash withdrawals or wire transfers) and submit SARs-Suspicious Activity Reports-to the government.
[...]
The new scrutiny resulted in an explosion of SARs, from 204,915 in 2001 to 1.23 million last year.

Also, the Bank Secrecy Act was Amended by the USA-PATRIOT Act, for a number of related matters.

Both right. The SARs were issued before. The Patriot Act DRASTICALLY expanded when they neede dot notify the government.

What's quizybuck's saying is nobody needed the Patriot Act to catch Spitzer. BSA's 38 years old, and banks have the technology to monitor single deposits around the threshold or multiple deposits exceeding the threshold for quite some time now. Yes, the Patriot Act, in addition to a bunch of huge fines (look up Bank of NY or Amboy National Bank) have increased AML Regulation, but Spitzer's "scheme" was so simplistic that a teller could've figured it out.

"
It doesn't have to be specifically for any reason. All they have to prove is that Spitzer knew about the Bank Secrecy Act threshold (which he had to in his profession) and that he took out more than a total of $10k in cash in one day by splitting up withdrawals into amounts below $10k. Just taking out more than $10k in cash with the intent to avoid CTR reporting is enough to go to jail. But typically, it's not a crime people get charged with very often. It's the white collar crime version of jaywalking.

So all he has to do is bring in his receipts from his hookers to prove that he was taking out money for a certain thing to prove he wasn't intentionally trying to avoid the threshold. Hopefully he saved the receipts!

hovis: What's quizybuck's saying is nobody needed the Patriot Act to catch Spitzer. BSA's 38 years old, and banks have the technology to monitor single deposits around the threshold or multiple deposits exceeding the threshold for quite some time now. Yes, the Patriot Act, in addition to a bunch of huge fines (look up Bank of NY or Amboy National Bank) have increased AML Regulation, but Spitzer's "scheme" was so simplistic that a teller could've figured it out.

I have to go to work, so I'll let it be at that--that's cool. I think the gist of the article was still correct: the changes in the BSA by the USA PATRIOT act got him nabbed. But, maybe not. Maybe he was just an overconfident 'tard.

Either way, I suggest he go balls-out (literally and metaphorically) and take Playgirl up on their offer.

This isn't my understanding of it or what I've read. They have to prove he was taking out little chunks to specifically avoid triggering the SARs. If he claims he was simply taking $4000 dollars 6 times a week because he needed 6 (fill in whatever wonderful sex act costs 4k here) a week, no structuring.

FYI - I work in AML - and if I saw someone doing what you said, I wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes on it. No SAR there. SAR's aren't triggered, they're written by people who have to pine over whether or not the activity is really SAR-worthy. Maybe his bank decided to call it structuring because he's a PEP taking out alot've cash (which is always SAR worthy), but usually you can't just throw out the term structuring without evidence, at least in most banks. Like I said before, you'd have to see the details of the SAR to determine the validity.

hovis: This isn't my understanding of it or what I've read. They have to prove he was taking out little chunks to specifically avoid triggering the SARs. If he claims he was simply taking $4000 dollars 6 times a week because he needed 6 (fill in whatever wonderful sex act costs 4k here) a week, no structuring.

FYI - I work in AML - and if I saw someone doing what you said, I wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes on it. No SAR there. SAR's aren't triggered, they're written by people who have to pine over whether or not the activity is really SAR-worthy. Maybe his bank decided to call it structuring because he's a PEP taking out alot've cash (which is always SAR worthy), but usually you can't just throw out the term structuring without evidence, at least in most banks. Like I said before, you'd have to see the details of the SAR to determine the validity.

FYI, I don't work in AML :) so I believe you. It was just my understanding of the structuring changes in this case and I have read they will probably not press the structuring charges. I dunno, again the only reason I know about any of this stuff is research after my account got froze. The government has WAY too much power.