myson wrote:
lyssandri wrote:
Thanks, BB
I have a followup question, but I'll send it privately so as not to continue the thread hijack
Some of us want to know what happen even if off topic ??????
Key allegation in the complaint:
Quote:
During the trial, Mr. Garcia-Ramos stated that he was not the owner of the money found in his vehicle.
The defendant must have put on a good enough case that the jury believed he was just a patsy hired to drive someone else's car across the border. Without knowledge of the cash, he could not be guilty of the charges of charges of bulk cash smuggling and failure to report monetary instruments. He was charged under 31 U.S.C. § 5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5332. Both require the actor to act "knowingly."
§ 5316:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person or an agent or bailee of the person shall file a report under subsection (b) of this section when the person, agent, or bailee
knowingly—
(1)
transports, is about to transport, or has transported, monetary instruments of more than $10,000 at one time—
(A)
from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States; or(B)
to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States; or
(2) receives monetary instruments of more than $10,000 at one time transported into the United States from or through a place outside the United States.
§ 5332:
(a) Criminal Offense.—
(1) In general.— Whoever,
with the intent to evade a currency reporting requirement under section 5316,
knowingly conceals more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary instruments on the person of such individual or
in any conveyance, article of luggage, merchandise, or other container,
and transports or transfers or attempts to transport or transfer such currency or monetary instruments from a place within the United States to a place outside of the United States, or from a place outside the United States to a place within the United States, shall be guilty of a currency smuggling offense and subject to punishment pursuant to subsection (b).
After swearing under oath that the cash was not his, he doesn't get to take it home, does he? So, to whom did the cash belong? Under the statute cited in the judgment, the United States was obligated to publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation that it was in the possession of cash so that the rightful owner could come forward and claim his/her property. Of course, anyone wishing to claim the cash would have a problem: He or she would be prosecuted because the cash had not been reported in a currency transaction report to the IRS and it was found in a car crossing the border -- the two prohibited acts under §§ 5316 and 5332. Since no one claimed the money -- it was, for all intents and purposes, abandoned -- the United States brought this civil action against the cash and car -- the property is the "defendant" in an
in rem action -- and asked the court to allow the
abandoned currency and car to be forfeited to the gubmint.
Everybody was in agreement with this, hence the STIPULATED judgment.
As to how that got twisted into a conspiracy about Judge Roll and an EO signed by Roosevelt is beyond me. The currency was the fruit of at least two crimes. The authority for seizing the property was statutory, not an EO.
Login
Register
FAQ
In any event, when no claimant stepped forward to claim his property the government and defendant stipulated that the property would be forfeited.
x 3 
x 21
