Patriot Act That Dennis Hastert Passed Led To His Indictment

[KamaAina]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/dennis-hastert-patriot-act_n_7465780.html

On Oct. 24, 2001, then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) shepherded the Patriot Act through the House of Representatives. It passed 357 to 66, advancing to the Senate and then-President George W. Bush’s desk for signing....

Little did Hastert know at the time that the law he helped pass would give federal law enforcement the tools to indict him on charges of violating banking-related reporting requirements more than a decade later.

The Department of Justice on Thursday announced Hastert's indictment for agreeing to pay $3.5 million in hush money to keep someone quiet about his “prior misconduct.” The indictment accuses Hastert of structuring bank withdrawals to avoid bank reporting requirements, and lying to the FBI about the nature of the withdrawals. It does not reveal the “misconduct” that Hastert was trying to conceal. The recipient of the money was a resident of Yorkville, Illinois, where Hastert taught high school and coached wrestling from 1965 to 1981.

The indictment suggests that law enforcement officials relied on the Patriot Act’s expansion of bank reporting requirements to snare Hastert. As the IRS notes, “the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 increased the scope” of cash reporting laws “to help trace funds used for terrorism.” The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which was amended by the Patriot Act, had already required banks to report suspicious transactions.

I think I'm going to adopt a female dog and name her Karma.

[bravenak]

1. .

[hifiguy]

2. Remember, kids,

Karma has a wicked sense of irony and she ALWAYS bites.

[cyberswede]

3. Well, that's poetic.

[Gregorian]

4. Something something a goose?

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Yes,Karma did bite

this tub of lard in the ass. Watch how the Wing Nut Media will attack some Clinton supporter for something similar. They will just repeat some made up story from the internet as BREAKING NEWS.

[KeepItReal]

6. Someone on HuffPost reads DU...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6747791

[mike_c]

7. something about this story doesn't add up....

At least, I'm confused. Everyone's assumption seems to be that Hastert was paying someone he sexually abused for remaining silent, but whether or not that turns out to be the case, as I understand it Hastert is charged with making the payments, or with concealing them, not with the sexual abuse itself. Is that correct?

So it seems that the victim-- assuming there was one-- and the perpetrator had arrived at a settlement that was agreeable to both. I mean, how is that sort of "hush money" any different from signing a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for a financial settlement in any civil affair? "Hush money" is routine and common in that respect.

So if Hastert isn't charged with the sex crime itself, why is it a crime for him to reach a private monetary settlement with his victim if the victim himself is satisfied with the settlement? What am I missing here? I don't have any sympathy for Hastert-- I just don't understand why making the payments was the crime, rather than the sexual abuse. It seems to me that if the victim is agreeable, Hastert should pay in exchange for keeping his career out of tatters.

[nichomachus]

9. A little thing called Statute of Limitations

You can't bring criminal charges after a certain amount of time has passed. Some states have extended them in the case of childhood sexual abuse. But not all. I din't know ifnthat's a factor here, but it's possible.

Also, he's not charged with making the payments. He's charged with violating the PATRIOT Act in making the bank withdrawals.

[mike_c]

11. sure, I understand that, but why is it a crime to send money to someone...

...that you've harmed? Particularly since the victim seems content with that settlement, i.e. the putative victim allowed the statute of limitations to run out while Hastert was making payments. Why is that a crime?

[uncle ray]

13. the crime is hiding it from the IRS.n/t.

[mike_c]

16. thank you....

OK, that makes sense. I'm not sure I like it-- I mean, payment for nondisclosure is routine and common, and as long as the parties are satisfied I don't think it should be any of the IRS's business what taxpayers spend their money on. But it doesn't surprise me that the IRS might want to know how everyone spends their money.

[nichomachus]

18. It's not the IRS -- it's the PATRIOT Act

All bank withdrawals over a certain amount have to be reported to Homeland Security. Supossedly, it's to make sure you're not funding terrorists.

[uncle ray]

19. 3.5 million.

sure, a few grand, 20 grand, whatever, i'd agree. somewhere between zero and 3.5 million i think it becomes the IRS's business. especially if paid while in office, which is probably why they were looking into it.

[mike_c]

21. but wouldn't he have already paid taxes on it?

As I understand it, he's been indicted for spending the money in a way that conceals his choice to spend it rather than being charged for hiding income.

[pnwmom]

24. That's what I'd think. But he probably was under some obligation to either

give his blackmailer some kind of IRS "Misc. income" form or else declare it as a "gift."

And his blackmailer should be indicted if he didn't pay income taxes on it.

[Chakab]

30. You can receive gifts equivalent to $5,000,000 before you have to pay taxes.

[nichomachus]

33. No -- estates are $5 million -- gift tax kicks in at $14,000 nt

[pnwmom]

39. But a gift tax return would have to be filed even if no tax was due.

Somehow I doubt anyone did that.

[uncle ray]

31. beats me.

but that's not how tasation works. i don't get to decline to pay property tax because i've already paid income tax. i can't not pay income tax because my employer already paid taxes on that money.

and yes, i misstated that the IRS was who was interested as the other poster pointed out. regardless of which agency, i really don't have much of a problem with the gov't wanting to know why people are moving around large sums of money, especially when those people are politicians.

heck, the dipshit Haster probably just made half the repubs in congress reconsider their support of the USA! Freedom! act.

[mopinko]

29. not the irs. money laundering statutes.

he deliberately took out amounts under the reporting threshold in order to avoid reporting the transactions.
if he had just paid him off in one lump sum, which would have been reported by the bank, period, he would have been fine.
course, he could have then been questioned about what he had done with the money. and would likely have lied, like he did.
his false statements to the fbi are also part of the charges.

[nichomachus]

15. It's not. That's not what he's charged with. Nt

[skepticscott]

42. Banks are require to report transactions of $10,000 or more

Hastert had originally been withdrawing in increments of $50,000 (hard to withdraw as much as he needed in small amounts), and the banks had questioned him about it, so to avoid further attention, he started making multiple withdrawals of just under $10,000. As it turns out, structuring larger transactions that way to avoid reporting requirements is a crime. When the FBI questioned him about it, he claimed that he was squirreling away cash because he was concerned about the safety of banks. Turns out, lying to the FBI is also a crime. Those are what he's being indicted for, not for the original act that he was trying to hide, or for paying "hush money" or for tax reasons.

[mike_c]

44. thank you, skepticscott....

I do appreciate the explanation. It sounds like this is one bizarre situation-- both parties were satisfied with the settlement, the victim got restitution that worked for him (assuming the money was going to the actual victim), and Hastert got to keep his reputation intact-- but the apparent money laundering Hastert had to go through eventually undid the whole thing. Now, the actual criminal charges are probably a rather small thing, but the associate scandal is huge. Karma indeed, but I suspect the unintended consequences will be worse for all concerned than the settlement they actually worked out together. I know that democrats feel a certain well deserved schadenfreude, but I suspect actual justice might have been been better served by allowing Hastert to keep paying his hush money.

[SoapBox]

14. And what is, well (to me), over reach...

Is that each transaction by itself was ok but it was the culmination of all the withdrawals...sheesh. My however is that I couldn't even do 1 $10,000 withdrawal.

Who\how did they find this out?

[nichomachus]

17. And Al Capone was nailed on tax evasion

[Jesus Malverde]

45. the feds require banks and by extension themselves to "know their customer"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

Onerous requirements like these are a reason americans have trouble opening bank accounts overseas.

'I was terrified we'd lose all our money': banks tell US customers they won't work with Americans

Angry Canadians are rare. But Patricia Moon qualifies.

Until 2012, Moon was actually an American – albeit one who had lived in Canada for 32 years. She settled in so well that in 2008, she added Canadian citizenship to her US one.

But Moon cut ties with America three years ago, after new banking laws aimed at tax evaders required expats like her to file more thorough US tax returns. She was five years behind on the news. “I was terrified we’d lose all our money,” she says.

After back-filing years of tax returns, Moon renounced her US citizenship in 2012. It was a defiant act she describes as being one of the first canaries to leave the coalmine as US banking laws make life more difficult for American expatriates. She wasn’t pleased she had to do it.

“It was like cutting off my right arm,” to not be American any more, says Moon, who only became a Canadian citizen in 2008. “Now, I’m simply angry.”

In February this year, the US and Canadian governments signed an intergovernmental agreement to co-operate on Fatca. The Foreign Accounts Taxation Compliance Act required all foreign banks to disclose the financial information of any American with assets over $50,000 sitting in banks outside of the US

Steep penalties add muscle to the law. If a foreign bank – not just in Canada, but anywhere – fails to report even a single US citizen as a customer to the IRS, the US Treasury department would withhold 30% of the banks’ US income as penalty.


http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/24/americans-chased-by-irs-give-up-citizenship-after-being-forced-out-of-bank-accounts

[SoapBox]

10. Well...

While a different case...I couldn't help but think of Martha Stewart.

Feds got jail time for lying vs. the actual "crime".

[rocktivity]

22. "Why is it a crime for him to reach a private monetary settlement with his victim

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 11:32 AM - Edit history (3)

if the victim himself is satisfied with the settlement?"

Either because lawyers weren't used (which would have made the settlement legal and private), or because the recipient of the money really IS a blackmailer, that is, the recipient is NOT the abuse victim.


rocktivity

[mike_c]

25. but in the latter case wouldn't Hastert himself be the victim?

Why would he be indicted for paying blackmail? Seriously, I'm rather naive about legal matters, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

edit: and in the former case, WTF? Really? I've never heard of such a requirement!

[rocktivity]

28. He WOULD have been a victim if he'd told the FBI the truth about what he was doing with the money

Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2018, 03:06 PM - Edit history (2)

and if the arrangements had been made without a lawyer. But unlike David Letterman, I guess Hastert decided that jail time would be less embarrassing.


rocktivity

[beam me up scottie]

8. Nice.

[rhett o rick]

12. I wish there was a power that people mistake as Karma. But I think it's something

else entirely. Rep Hassert got away with graft and corruption since he joined Congress and well after. He amassed quit a fortune for someone that didn't do a lick of work. Everyone knew he was crooked. So why now? I am hoping that the Democratic President has something to do with it. Maybe some Democrats are getting back at the bastards that screwed them years ago.

[Independent_Liberal]

20. What goes around... Comes around.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Hahahaha. Bit in the ass by Karma!

[hifiguy]

27. . . .

[DesertFlower]

37. the picture made me smile. nt

[kentuck]

26. No one knows when Karma will just walk thru the door...

And all the marbles roll in every direction across the floor...red ones...blue ones....white ones.

Then silence...

Karma strikes again.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Funny how these things work out, isnt it?

Ooops.

[Ed Suspicious]

34. Breaking News: Republican fails to see the big picture.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. I'm looking for a word... it escapes me

[frylock]

36. the ironing is delicious

[jmowreader]

38. It's not a DOG you need to name Karma in this instance

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Gee, his crime had nothing to do with terrorism

And neither did the war on terror.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Sometimes God smiles. nt

[sarisataka]

43. OH,