home
U.S. Attorney Says No Deal With Spitzer...Yet | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM EST
  actually, the structuring/money laundering theories are by far the weakest based on the information made public. It appears  true that SUUSPICION of that is what triggered the investigation but, even assuming he made multiplre transfers in a short time frame which totalled more than $10K in the aggreagate, structuring  would be a really tough sell to a jury  his argument that he was not intentionally structuring to evade reporting requirements is strong, though not unassailable, and a lot of people would be hesitant to convict a man of a pretty arcane law using his own money  when the use was just hookers.

   I'd think the interstate travel of the hooker which he appears to have arranged and financed is probably the federal charge he'd be most likely to lose at trial

 

they won't charge the mann act (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:26:46 PM EST
they never do in these cases, it would be selective prosecution. They'd also have to charge the customer in Chicago who had a woman flown from LAX to O'Hare. (See affidavit for complaint.)

If the wires or cash payments weren't for the same transaction and occurred weeks or months apart, I think they have no structuring case.

If his intent in moving the money the way he did wasn't to evade reporting requirements (and remember, he used his own name) but to keep his wife from noticing big withdrawals, then he didn't have the requisite intent for the crime.

[ Parent ]

The Mann Act (none / 0) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:41:47 PM EST
is but one possibility. § 1952 outlaws interstate or foreign travel in aid of racketeering enterprises and specifically includes prostitution as a "racketeering" enterprise.

  I doubt he ends up getting charged with any federal offense but they will get something out of him before they agree to forego federal charges. Here, where he  did not just pay a fee for services but specically agreed to cover actual expenses (his stupidity sems boundless considering his profession and position) he could be exposed to substantive charges as a principal. If not aiding and abetting or even conspiracy charges are likely to be mentioned to his lawyers if they get too blustery with the Feds.

   

[ Parent ]

U.S. Attorney Says No Deal With Spitzer...Yet | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft