Thread: Feds indict former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) on bank-related charges

Federal Banking Rules on Withdrawing Large Sums of Cash

by Cam Merritt, Demand Media



Withdraw $10,000, and the IRS will hear about it.

More Articles

• Rules for Withdrawing Funds at 70 1/2 From a Retirement Account
• Nesting In Banking
• Federal Tax Rules on IRA Withdrawals
• Rules for Cashing U.S. Saving Bonds
• Federal Income Tax Rules Regarding IRA Holdings
• Savings Bank Account Rules

Federal law allows you to withdraw as much cash as you want from your bank accounts. It's your money, after all. Take out more than a certain amount, however, and the bank must report the withdrawal to the Internal Revenue Service, which might come around to inquire about why you need all that cash.

The Law

A 1970 anti-money-laundering law known as the Bank Secrecy Act spells out the rules for large cash withdrawals. In general, banks must report any transaction involving at least $10,000 in cash. That includes not only withdrawals but also deposits, currency exchanges (such as swapping dollars for euros or Japanese yen) and the purchase of traveler's checks. The law also requires banks to check identification on any transaction that would trigger a report. In other words, even if your bank doesn't usually ask for ID with withdrawals, it must do so for withdrawals over $10,000.

Aggregate Withdrawals

Under the law, all transactions carried out at an institution within a single day count as a single transaction, and all branches of a bank count as a single institution. So if you went to your bank in the morning and withdrew $5,000, then went to a different branch in the afternoon and took out another $5,000, the combined transactions would trigger a report to the IRS. In addition, if the bank has reason to believe a series of transactions are related, even if they're not on the same day, the bank is obligated to file a report.

If you come into the bank every day for a week and withdraw $8,000, you could expect the bank to file a report.

Structured Transactions

Banks must also report transactions that are less than $10,000 when they believe that the dollar amount of those transactions was specifically chosen to avoid triggering the Bank Secrecy Act. Federal regulations refer to these as "structured" transactions.

Withdrawing $9,990 will probably raise a red flag as a potentially structured transaction. In fact, any transaction, regardless of the amount, that the bank deems suspicious can trigger a report.

Exceptions

The law makes a few exceptions. A bank doesn't have to file a report on large cash transactions involving other banks or government agencies. It also allows banks to apply for exemptions for regular business customers. If, say, a bank has a department store as a customer, and that store's manager withdraws $20,000 in cash for the store safe or the registers, the bank doesn't have to make a report each time it happens. Instead, the bank can file a form with the IRS identifying the store as a regular business customer. This exemption must be renewed every year.

http://finance.zacks.com/federal-ban...cash-1696.html

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Federal Banking Rules on Withdrawing Large Sums of Cash

by Cam Merritt, Demand Media



Withdraw $10,000, and the IRS will hear about it.

More Articles

• Rules for Withdrawing Funds at 70 1/2 From a Retirement Account
• Nesting In Banking
• Federal Tax Rules on IRA Withdrawals
• Rules for Cashing U.S. Saving Bonds
• Federal Income Tax Rules Regarding IRA Holdings
• Savings Bank Account Rules

Federal law allows you to withdraw as much cash as you want from your bank accounts. It's your money, after all. Take out more than a certain amount, however, and the bank must report the withdrawal to the Internal Revenue Service, which might come around to inquire about why you need all that cash.

The Law

A 1970 anti-money-laundering law known as the Bank Secrecy Act spells out the rules for large cash withdrawals. In general, banks must report any transaction involving at least $10,000 in cash. That includes not only withdrawals but also deposits, currency exchanges (such as swapping dollars for euros or Japanese yen) and the purchase of traveler's checks. The law also requires banks to check identification on any transaction that would trigger a report. In other words, even if your bank doesn't usually ask for ID with withdrawals, it must do so for withdrawals over $10,000.

Aggregate Withdrawals

Under the law, all transactions carried out at an institution within a single day count as a single transaction, and all branches of a bank count as a single institution. So if you went to your bank in the morning and withdrew $5,000, then went to a different branch in the afternoon and took out another $5,000, the combined transactions would trigger a report to the IRS. In addition, if the bank has reason to believe a series of transactions are related, even if they're not on the same day, the bank is obligated to file a report.

If you come into the bank every day for a week and withdraw $8,000, you could expect the bank to file a report.

Structured Transactions

Banks must also report transactions that are less than $10,000 when they believe that the dollar amount of those transactions was specifically chosen to avoid triggering the Bank Secrecy Act. Federal regulations refer to these as "structured" transactions.

Withdrawing $9,990 will probably raise a red flag as a potentially structured transaction. In fact, any transaction, regardless of the amount, that the bank deems suspicious can trigger a report.

Exceptions

The law makes a few exceptions. A bank doesn't have to file a report on large cash transactions involving other banks or government agencies. It also allows banks to apply for exemptions for regular business customers. If, say, a bank has a department store as a customer, and that store's manager withdraws $20,000 in cash for the store safe or the registers, the bank doesn't have to make a report each time it happens. Instead, the bank can file a form with the IRS identifying the store as a regular business customer. This exemption must be renewed every year.

http://finance.zacks.com/federal-ban...cash-1696.html

So what? Where does it say it's illegal to withdraw the money for legal purpose in any amount? What the bank is required to do has nothing whatsover to do with Dennis Hastert or any other bank customers or what they're required to do. The reporting requirements are on the bank officials, not the bank customer. Dennis Hastert withdrew $50,000 at least 15 times before bank officials said not to do that because that required them to report it. Just because a bank is required to report a transaction has absolutely nothing to do with your right to withdraw your money any time in any amount for any legal purpose.

Federal law allows you to withdraw as much cash as you want from your bank accounts. It's your money, after all. Take out more than a certain amount, however, and the bank must report the withdrawal to the Internal Revenue Service, which might come around to inquire about why you need all that cash.

Duh. Isn't that nice of the federal government to allow you to withdraw as much of your money from your bank accounts as you want? After all, it's your money!

Why Dennis Hastert got indicted by the feds

By Philip Bump May 28


Former House speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois at the unveiling of his portrait at the U.S. Capitol on July 28, 2009. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

On Thursday afternoon, a stunning bit of political news broke: Former House speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that he lied to the FBI and tried to mask cash transactions made from various banks.

The case is fascinating and a bit complicated, so we thought a walk-throughbased on the indictment was in order. All of what follows are allegations; Hastert has not been found guilty in a court of law.

Hastert was confronted by someone in 2010 and allegedly agreed to pay money to keep something quiet. According to the indictment, an unnamed longtime acquaintance of Hastert (whom the document refers to as Individual A) brought up "past misconduct" by the former speaker during a conversation in 2010. Over the course of ensuing conversations, Hastert agreed to give Individual A a total of $3.5 million to "compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct."

The past misconduct isn't specified, nor is the time frame during which it allegedly occurred.


Examples of "structured" transactions (Department of the Treasury)

Hastert allegedly began making $50,000 cash payments to Individual A. Hastert withdrew $1.7 million in cash from various bank accounts through 2014 to give to Individual A. Shortly before he left office, Hastert reported between $3 million and $12 million in assets from real estate holdings; after leaving office, he was a successful lobbyist in Washington.

Hastert's first problem is that federal law mandates cash transactions exceeding $10,000 be reported using a Currency Transaction Report. The reason for this is pretty obvious: It is meant to allow criminal activity to be traced. It is also illegal to break up large transactions into smaller ones to avoid the reporting requirement. That's known as "structuring."

[Former House speaker Dennis Hastert indicted by federal grand jury]

From June 2010 to April 2012, Hastert withdrew $50,000 sums from several banks at which he had accounts and gave the money to Individual A every few weeks. Those transactions weren't reported.
When a bank asked about the transactions, he allegedly reduced the withdrawal amounts to under $10,000 to avoid reporting rules. After a bank asked about the large sums he was withdrawing, Hastert started pulling out money in smaller increments — in other words, allegedly structuring the payments.

The FBI started investigating Hastert's transactions. It's not clear what prompted the investigation, but the implication is that the bureau was given a heads-up by one of Hastert's banks.


Confronted by the FBI, Hastert allegedly lied about the payments.His second legal problem was his response to the FBI inquiry. The FBI was looking for answers to several questions: Was he taking out money in increments of less than $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements? Was he withdrawing the funds as hush money or to cover a crime? Was he being extorted?

Hastert was asked whether he took the money out because he didn't trust the banking system. His reply? "Yeah ... I kept the cash. That's what I'm doing." This was not true, according to the FBI's investigation that uncovered the details above.

The two counts Hastert faces are that he:

1. "did knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," and
2. "did knowingly and for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Title 31 ... structure and assist in structuring transactions ... in United States currency in amounts under $10,000 in separate transactions on at least 106 occasions."

There's still a lot we don't know about the case. But as so often happens, it appears to have been the coverup that led to Hastert's downfall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-by-the-feds/

There's still a lot we don't know about the case. But as so often happens, it appears to have been the coverup that led to Hastert's downfall.

There has to first be a crime, for there to be a coverup of one. There is nothing illegal about structuring transactions to avoid bank reporting transactions unless you're withdrawing the money for an illegal purpose, which he wasn't. There's also no "lying" to the FBI when there is no material fact being concealed, which there wasn't. At least he's not been charged with one.

You have the right to withdraw your money any time in any amount you want. Yes, banks are required to report them in certain amounts. That's the bank's issue, not yours. If you do and in whatever manner you choose to withdraw your money for whatever reason, yes, the FBI may show up and ask you a bunch of questions and instead of giving them a story to protect your privacy, tell them "no comment" or "none of gawd damn business" and send them packing.

Better yet, demand Congress repeal this stupid invasive law, called the "Bank Secrecy Act". Does any of what has happened to Dennis Hastert sound like an act of "bank secrecy"? No, so far, all the "secrecy" is on the part of the FBI. Their witnesses are secret, the agents who interviewed the witnesses are secret and hell, even the top officials talking to the press about the case are secret. What is not secret is what is supposed to be secret which is what you withdraw and deposit into your bank accounts.

And in 2010, who didn't trust the banks? I'm not sure too many trust them still.

Dennis Hastert to be arraigned on Thursday

By JOSH GERSTEIN
6/1/15 2:14 PM EDT

Former House speaker Dennis Hastert is set to be arraigned Thursday on a federal indictment stemming from allegations that he sought to cover up what prosecutors contend was a deal to pay $3.5 million to an acquaintance over “prior misconduct” by the longtime politician.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Durkin set Hastert’s first court appearance for 10 a.m. Thursday at the federal courthouse in Chicago.

Hastert, 73, has not been heard from publicly since a grand jury charged him last week with two felonies: “structuring” nearly $1 million in cash withdrawals to keep them below a $10,000 reporting limit and lying when he told the FBI that he held onto the cash.

Each charge carries a potential five-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine, although federal sentencing guidelines usually suggest a more lenient sentence, particularly for a first-time offender.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3bq8cfBiy

Arraignment of Dennis Hastert delayed until June 9


House Speaker Dennis Hastert, shown taking questions after the 9/11 attacks.
(Jimi Allen, TNS)


By Jason Meisner Chicago Tribune contact the reporter

• Dennis Hastert

The arraignment of former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert on charges he paid hush money to a longtime acquaintance has been abruptly rescheduled for next week.
lRelated
NEWS Key charge against Hastert a rare one in Chicago's federal court SEE ALL RELATED

Hastert, 73, had been scheduled to make his first court appearance before U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin on Thursday morning.

But court records show the hearing was canceled and rescheduled for 2 p.m. June 9 before Durkin.

No reason was given for the change, although it's not uncommon for hearings to be moved to accommodate the parties involved.


Dennis Hastert had multiple sources of income after leaving Congress

No attorney has come forward for Hastert as of Tuesday.

Hastert is charged with agreeing to pay $3.5 million to a longtime acquaintance to cover up wrongdoing in his past, and then lying to the FBI when asked about the suspicious cash withdrawals from several banks.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...602-story.html

Fellow Congressman Was Told About Dennis Hastert Abuses

Posted: 06/02/2015 3:02 pm EDT Updated: 06/02/2015 10:59 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- At least one member of Congress was aware that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) allegedly sexually molested a male former student prior to his time in Congress.

Relatively early on during Hastert's speakership, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) was approached with news about the alleged abuse, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation that took place with Watt. The source spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the matter.

According to the source, the person who approached Watt was an intermediary for the family of the abuse victim and knew the North Carolina congressman informally. The source did not know what Watt, who now directs the Federal Housing Finance Agency, did with the information.

After The Huffington Post first reported the claims on Tuesday, Watt sent a statement saying that he had, in fact, heard about allegations against Hastert during the early days of his speakership. But he said the information did not appear either reliable or serious enough to prompt action.

“Over 15 years ago I heard an unseemly rumor from someone who, contrary to what has been reported, was not an intermediary or advocate for the alleged victim’s family," read the statement. "It would not be the first nor last time that I, as a Member of Congress, would hear rumors or innuendoes about colleagues. I had no direct knowledge of any abuse by former Speaker Hastert and, therefore, took no action."

HuffPost asked Watt's office to clarify who the person who relayed the information was. An official in the office did not immediately respond to that request for clarification.

It seems undisputed, however, that Watt took no action upon hearing the details of Hastert’s alleged abuse.

Prior to receiving Watt's statement, HuffPost reached out to more than a dozen former and current lawmakers and elected officials to inquire about the source's claim. Former members of Congress who served with Watt said he had never mentioned it to them. Several of Watt’s colleagues at the time who are still serving in Congress didn't recall hearing anything.

Democratic leadership sources say they never heard anything from Watt and had no inkling of Hastert’s past.

These reactions mirror the larger response to the Hastert news, which surfaced after the former speaker was charged with lying to the FBI about the hush money he was withdrawing from banks. From his hometown of Yorkville, Illinois, to the halls of Congress, there has been uniform shock that the wrestling coach turned most powerful Republican in Washington had such a sordid past.

But while the individuals who spoke with HuffPost were quick to say they had no inkling and had heard no rumors, Watt’s office was, initially, much cagier.

Given opportunities over several days to clarify what exactly took place more than a decade ago, Watt’s office wouldn't talk. At first, they simply declined to make Watt available for discussion. Later, when reached on the phone and told what the specific issue was, Watt’s spokeswoman responded that she had anticipated that that was the subject of the inquiry.

Late last week, a separate official was made available to discuss the matter, but only on the condition that the conversation be off the record. HuffPost can’t disclose the details of that discussion, but suffice it to say that they weren’t enough to preempt the publication of this piece.

On Monday, HuffPost put four specific questions to Watt’s office about Hastert, including a simple yes or no: Was the congressman approached with allegations of Hastert sexually molesting someone?

“No comment,” responded the spokeswoman, Stefanie Johnson.

It was only after the publication of this piece that Johnson sent over the statement from Watt acknowledging that he had heard the Hastert rumor.

This story has been updated in light of the statement that Watt's office sent to HuffPost on Tuesday afternoon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7495320.html

Victim of alleged abuse named

Sister names victim of alleged Dennis Hastert abuse

By Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
Updated 10:03 AM ET, Fri June 5, 2015
| Video Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)Dennis Hastert sexually abused a student who had worked as his equipment manager while Hastert coached a high school wrestling team, the student's sister tells ABC News.

It's the first name that's emerged as an alleged victim of abuse at the hands of the former House Speaker since Hastert was indicted for allegedly lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed person to "cover up past misconduct."


1970 yearbook picture of Dennis Hastert and alleged sexual assault victim Steven Reinboldt

RELATED: Hastert's hush money was to cover up sexual misconduct with former student, sources say

Jolene Burdge said in the interview that she found out about Hastert's misconduct when her older brother Steven Reinboldt, who died in 1995, told her in 1979, years after leaving school, that he was gay.
"I asked him, when was your first same sex experience. He looked at me and said, 'It was with Dennis Hastert,'" Burdge, whose maiden name is Reinboldt, told ABC News. "I was stunned."


1970 yearbook picture of Dennis Hastert and alleged sexual assault victim Steven Reinboldt

He didn't tell anyone, he said, because "Who is ever going to believe me?" Burdge recounted.

Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois between 1965 and 1981 before entering politics.

Burdge said Hastert had "plenty of opportunities to be alone" with her brother because he was frequently around during wrestling meets, and was also a member of an Explorers troop that Hastert ran. At one point, Hastert took the group on a trip to the Bahamas.



Was hush money used to cover up sexual misconduct? 02:20

PLAY VIDEO

How did Hastert hide past from media? 08:00

PLAY VIDEO

Dennis Hastert wrestler: 'I really don't believe it'04:26

PLAY VIDEO

"[Steven Reinboldt] was there after everything because he did the laundry, the uniforms. So he was there by himself with [Hastert]," Burdge said.

It's unclear whether Steven Reinboldt is related to the charges in the current indictment against Hastert, however, as that outlines an agreement with an unidentified individual that began with meetings in 2010.

"During the 2010 meetings and subsequent discussions, Hastert agreed to provide Individual A $3.5 million in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against Individual A," according to the indictment. Jolene Reinbolt told ABC that she did not know who "individual A" is.

Read the indictment

Burdge says her brother passed away of AIDS in 1995, and she maintains she never asked Hastert for money. Burdge did say she was contacted by the FBI two weeks ago asking to speak with her about Hastert.

Burdge said she tried to alert news organizations about Hastert in 2006, including ABC. ABC News said it didn't run with the reporting because it lacked corroborating evidence.

A federal law enforcement official confirmed to CNN last week that the indictment was pertaining to a former student, who was a male and a minor when the alleged abuse took place. Federal law enforcement officials also said that investigators decided not to pursue a possible extortion case in the matter.

Hastert and the FBI declined to comment to ABC on the report. A woman who answered the phone at Hastert's office on Thursday said the speaker was unavailable and took a message. Burdge has not yet responded to CNN request for comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/05/politi...ldt/index.html

By STEPHANIE CONDON, JEFF PEGUES CBS NEWS June 5, 2015, 5:46 PM

FBI aware of multiple potential victims in Hastert case


U.S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, leaves the House Republican Conference leadership elections alone on Capitol Hill Nov. 17, 2006, in Washington. CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES

CBS News has learned that during the investigation into Dennis Hastert, the FBI became aware of as many as two, maybe three, potential victims alleging sexual misconduct by the House speaker.

Hastert last month was indicted and charged with violating federal banking laws and lying to FBI investigators. According to the indictment, Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2010 to a person identified only as "Individual A," in an effort to "compensate and conceal" Hastert's "prior misconduct."

"Individual A" is one of the alleged victims the FBI may have interviewed, according to the source.

Word of this more expansive investigation comes on the same day of more explosive charges from the family of an alleged abuse victim. Jolene Burdge told ABC News that Hastert molested her brother Stephen Reinboldt through high school.

At the time of the alleged molestation, Hastert was the wrestling coach at Yorkville High School in Illinois, and Reinboldt was the student equipment manager for the team.

Reinboldt died in 1995, at age 42, from AIDS, his sister said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-may-...-hastert-case/