1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Keep smokin' that stuff. :chuckle:
Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
Keep smokin' that stuff. :chuckle:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Money launderers put in a huge sum then draw it out before banks can collect on their loans.
How is that defrauding?
All banks should be shut down.
I don't use em, why do you?
WizardofOz
New member
That isn't even what Manafort did...You really don't have a clue as to what is going on.
:hammer:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Okay, I'll bite.
Enlighten me, how does one go about defrauding a bank?
Did he deposit counterfeit legal tender?
ClimateSanity
New member
What is it that you think our democracy needs saving from? Also, we don't have a democracy; we have a republic. When you say " our democracy" what exactly is it you are referring to?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I know you're a hard head but I wouldn't suggest continuing that activity.
ClimateSanity
New member
What is Trump supposed to be scared of? He hasn't done anything.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I will just leave this right here....
Bureaucratic Moneylaundering
by Gail Jarvis
Most of you recently received a W-2 Form from your employer which detailed your income and deductions for the previous year. One of the blocks on the form was captioned "Federal Income Tax Withheld." This is the amount you pay to fund government services. Because such a large amount is "withheld" you would like to think that Congress exercises prudence in its spending, and that it only funds services that are essential; services you approve of.
But the truth is that Congress uses our taxes to fund countless non-essential activities as well as functions we probably would not condone. Furthermore, Congress funds some services in ways that are often disguised. Let me mention just one example that I find particularly inappropriate.
One of the many non-essential services supported by our tax dollars is the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). When it began in the 1960s, it was the only outlet offering so-called "cultural" programs, i.e., the arts, history, children's programs, etc., so PBS could honestly claim: "If PBS won't do it, who will?" Of course, today there are several commercial channels carrying this type of programming so PBS's famous justification for receiving federal funds is no longer valid. But even though its relevance is diminishing, the federal funds PBS receives continue to escalate. In 1969, PBS cost taxpayers only five million dollars, but the organization has a current budget request approaching $400 million!
In addition to government funding, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) now allows PBS to air commercial messages between programs. This decision represents a radical departure from past rulings because the FCC had always maintained that the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits non-commercial broadcasters from airing advertisements. However, the obliging FCC accepts PBS's argument that the commercial messages are "value neutral identifications" without a specific product endorsement. PBS uses the slippery euphemism "enhanced underwriter acknowledgments."
But commercial messages following PBS's children's programs from sponsors such as Kellogg's Frosted Flakes, Chuck E. Cheese and Post Alpha-Bits Cereal would seem to be in violation of the Act. However, the FCC has made its questionable decision so PBS now has the best of both worlds — government funding and commercial advertising revenue.
To downplay the size of its taxpayer support, PBS claims that less than one third of its funding is provided by the government. They are referring to the money Congress allocates to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But there is also government money obliquely making its way into PBS coffers; what we might call "phantom funding."
In a recent roster of PBS's largest contributors, those donating amounts from a $100,000 to a million dollars or more, you will find several government agencies; agencies funded by taxpayers. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is one of the top contributors and, in addition, the NEH also provided funding for Ken Burns' Civil War films as well as other PBS programs.
Among the other large contributors to the Public Broadcasting System are the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and, strangely, the Department of the Army. All three of these departments are funded by taxpayers. So we must ask: Do these government departments have excess funds available that allow them to make contributions to other organizations? Are these proposed contributions included in their budget requests? Approved by Congress?
The National Park Service is another generous contributor to PBS. Like the departments listed above, this government agency also apparently receives more funding than it needs for day to day operations, so it gives money away in the form of donations.
Finally, as incredible as it may seem, you will find the United States Postal Service on PBS's list of its largest contributors. This is the same Postal Service that claims to be in such desperate financial straits that it must regularly increase the price of postage stamps in order to stay afloat. Nevertheless, our benevolent Postmaster General is able to satisfy his philanthropic urges by donating portions of his department's funding to the Public Broadcasting System.
These examples of bureaucratic money laundering are just another illustration of how our spendthrift Congress allows our tax dollars to be squandered.
Bureaucratic Moneylaundering
by Gail Jarvis
Most of you recently received a W-2 Form from your employer which detailed your income and deductions for the previous year. One of the blocks on the form was captioned "Federal Income Tax Withheld." This is the amount you pay to fund government services. Because such a large amount is "withheld" you would like to think that Congress exercises prudence in its spending, and that it only funds services that are essential; services you approve of.
But the truth is that Congress uses our taxes to fund countless non-essential activities as well as functions we probably would not condone. Furthermore, Congress funds some services in ways that are often disguised. Let me mention just one example that I find particularly inappropriate.
One of the many non-essential services supported by our tax dollars is the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). When it began in the 1960s, it was the only outlet offering so-called "cultural" programs, i.e., the arts, history, children's programs, etc., so PBS could honestly claim: "If PBS won't do it, who will?" Of course, today there are several commercial channels carrying this type of programming so PBS's famous justification for receiving federal funds is no longer valid. But even though its relevance is diminishing, the federal funds PBS receives continue to escalate. In 1969, PBS cost taxpayers only five million dollars, but the organization has a current budget request approaching $400 million!
In addition to government funding, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) now allows PBS to air commercial messages between programs. This decision represents a radical departure from past rulings because the FCC had always maintained that the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits non-commercial broadcasters from airing advertisements. However, the obliging FCC accepts PBS's argument that the commercial messages are "value neutral identifications" without a specific product endorsement. PBS uses the slippery euphemism "enhanced underwriter acknowledgments."
But commercial messages following PBS's children's programs from sponsors such as Kellogg's Frosted Flakes, Chuck E. Cheese and Post Alpha-Bits Cereal would seem to be in violation of the Act. However, the FCC has made its questionable decision so PBS now has the best of both worlds — government funding and commercial advertising revenue.
To downplay the size of its taxpayer support, PBS claims that less than one third of its funding is provided by the government. They are referring to the money Congress allocates to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But there is also government money obliquely making its way into PBS coffers; what we might call "phantom funding."
In a recent roster of PBS's largest contributors, those donating amounts from a $100,000 to a million dollars or more, you will find several government agencies; agencies funded by taxpayers. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is one of the top contributors and, in addition, the NEH also provided funding for Ken Burns' Civil War films as well as other PBS programs.
Among the other large contributors to the Public Broadcasting System are the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and, strangely, the Department of the Army. All three of these departments are funded by taxpayers. So we must ask: Do these government departments have excess funds available that allow them to make contributions to other organizations? Are these proposed contributions included in their budget requests? Approved by Congress?
The National Park Service is another generous contributor to PBS. Like the departments listed above, this government agency also apparently receives more funding than it needs for day to day operations, so it gives money away in the form of donations.
Finally, as incredible as it may seem, you will find the United States Postal Service on PBS's list of its largest contributors. This is the same Postal Service that claims to be in such desperate financial straits that it must regularly increase the price of postage stamps in order to stay afloat. Nevertheless, our benevolent Postmaster General is able to satisfy his philanthropic urges by donating portions of his department's funding to the Public Broadcasting System.
These examples of bureaucratic money laundering are just another illustration of how our spendthrift Congress allows our tax dollars to be squandered.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
If he was truly interested in election meddling he would be wondering about voter fraud, not what someone might say to sway a voter.
WizardofOz
New member
Another person to lazy to read the indictment
drbrumley
Well-known member
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/money_laundering
Money laundering refers to a financial transaction scheme that aims to conceal the identity, source, and destination of illicitly-obtained money. The money laundering process can be broken down into three stages. First, the illegal activity that garners the money places it in the launderer’s hands. Second, the launderer passes the money through a complex scheme of transactions to obscure who initially received the money from the criminal enterprise. Third, the scheme returns the money to the launderer in an obscure and indirect way.
Tax evasion and false accounting practices constitute common types of money laundering. Often, criminals achieve these objectives through the use of shell companies, holding companies, and offshore accounts. A shell company is an incorporated company that possesses no significant assets and does not perform any significant operations. To launder money, the shell company purports to perform some service that would reasonably require its customers to often pay with cash. Cash transactions increase the anonymity of customers and therefore decrease the government’s ability to trace the initial recipient of the dirty money. Money launderers commonly select beauty salons and plumbing services as shell companies. The launderer then deposits the money with the shell company, which deposits it into its accounts. The company then creates fake invoices and receipts to account for the cash. Such transactions create the appearance of propriety and clean money. The shell company can then make withdrawals and either return the money to the initial criminal or pass the money on to further shell companies before returning it to further cloud who first deposited the money.
Criminals often use offshore accounts to hide money because they offer greater privacy, less regulation, and reduced taxation. Because the U.S. government has no authority to require foreign banks to report the interest earned by U.S. citizens with foreign bank accounts, the criminal can keep the account abroad, fail to report the account’s existence, and receive the interest without paying personal income taxes on it in the U.S.
U.S. Government’s Response
To combat this criminal activity, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which requires banks to report any financial transactions of $10,000.01 or more. Congress followed up this Act sixteen years later with the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, which rendered money laundering a federal crime. In 2001, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the scope of reporting responsibilities and included more types of financial institutions in an effort to combat the financing of terrorist activities.
In a pair of 2008 decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the federal statute criminalizing money laundering. Cuellar v. United States (06-1456) determined that to prove money laundering, prosecutors must show that concealment of money must be for the purpose of concealing ownership, source, or control rather than for some other purpose. In United States v. Santos (06-1005), the Court held that the word “proceeds” in the federal laundering statute referred only to criminal profits and excluded criminal receipts. Thus, the Court reversed a pair of convictions based on money laundering involving the pay out of winnings in an illegal gambling ring.
See 18 U.S.C. 1956 Money Laundering
Money laundering refers to a financial transaction scheme that aims to conceal the identity, source, and destination of illicitly-obtained money. The money laundering process can be broken down into three stages. First, the illegal activity that garners the money places it in the launderer’s hands. Second, the launderer passes the money through a complex scheme of transactions to obscure who initially received the money from the criminal enterprise. Third, the scheme returns the money to the launderer in an obscure and indirect way.
Tax evasion and false accounting practices constitute common types of money laundering. Often, criminals achieve these objectives through the use of shell companies, holding companies, and offshore accounts. A shell company is an incorporated company that possesses no significant assets and does not perform any significant operations. To launder money, the shell company purports to perform some service that would reasonably require its customers to often pay with cash. Cash transactions increase the anonymity of customers and therefore decrease the government’s ability to trace the initial recipient of the dirty money. Money launderers commonly select beauty salons and plumbing services as shell companies. The launderer then deposits the money with the shell company, which deposits it into its accounts. The company then creates fake invoices and receipts to account for the cash. Such transactions create the appearance of propriety and clean money. The shell company can then make withdrawals and either return the money to the initial criminal or pass the money on to further shell companies before returning it to further cloud who first deposited the money.
Criminals often use offshore accounts to hide money because they offer greater privacy, less regulation, and reduced taxation. Because the U.S. government has no authority to require foreign banks to report the interest earned by U.S. citizens with foreign bank accounts, the criminal can keep the account abroad, fail to report the account’s existence, and receive the interest without paying personal income taxes on it in the U.S.
U.S. Government’s Response
To combat this criminal activity, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which requires banks to report any financial transactions of $10,000.01 or more. Congress followed up this Act sixteen years later with the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, which rendered money laundering a federal crime. In 2001, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the scope of reporting responsibilities and included more types of financial institutions in an effort to combat the financing of terrorist activities.
In a pair of 2008 decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the federal statute criminalizing money laundering. Cuellar v. United States (06-1456) determined that to prove money laundering, prosecutors must show that concealment of money must be for the purpose of concealing ownership, source, or control rather than for some other purpose. In United States v. Santos (06-1005), the Court held that the word “proceeds” in the federal laundering statute referred only to criminal profits and excluded criminal receipts. Thus, the Court reversed a pair of convictions based on money laundering involving the pay out of winnings in an illegal gambling ring.
See 18 U.S.C. 1956 Money Laundering
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Nope.
Just answer the questions.
Under penalty of perjury cause I said so.
:crackup:
WizardofOz
New member
Nope.
Just answer the questions.
Under penalty of perjury cause I said so.
Why don't you read the indictment for yourself? It's not that long...
Spoiler
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
So then..... they must first prove it was a criminal enterprise.
I cast reasonable doubt on that yesterday.
WizardofOz
New member
WizardofOz
New member
| COUNT TWO (Conspiracy To Launder Money) 40. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and 32 through 36 are incorporated here. 41. In or around and between 2006 and 2016, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., and RICHARD W. GATES III, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to: (a) transport, transmit, and transfer monetary instruments and funds from places outside the United States to and through places in the United States and from places in the United States to and through places outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, to wit: a felony violation of the FARA, in violation of Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618 (the “Specified Unlawful Activity"), contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A); and (b) conduct financial transactions, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowing that the property involved in the financial bansactions would represent the proceeds of some form of imlawM activity, and the transactions in fact would involve the proceeds of Specified Unlawful Activity, knowing that such financial transactions were designed in whole and in part (i) to engage in conduct constituting a violation of sections 7201 and 7206 of the Internal Revenue Cod of 1986, and (ii) to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of the Specified Unlawful Activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). |
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I've read most of it.
If Mueller worked for me I'd already have fired him for failing to follow through with my direct order to investigate voter fraud.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Hard head. :rotfl:
WizardofOz
New member
This is what Mueller turned up when investigating that very thing...
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
We're done.
- Status