Structuring though is one of the dumbest, laziest and most arbitrary law ever. If you say that the limit is, say, max 100 K USD for something but plan to attack for structuring the person who did 5 times 100 K USD, then simply make the law clearer: make the law say 100 K USD max and, say, max 200 K USD over five years. But don't come after people who did respect the numbers written in the law for "structuring".
It's another crazy concept of overreaching states and IRSes enjoying way too much power. They can arbitrarily decided what's structuring and what is not. Arbitrary decisions aren't how a democracy should work.
You want to prevent people doing these kind of transfers? Make it clear what the limits are. Don't come after people doing precisely what the limit allows several times: precise it can only be done once or x times over a certain time period.
That's by the way, how some laws do work. For example in France you're allowed to give your kids up to 150 K EUR of real estate (or something), tax and inheritance tax free, once every 15 years. After 15 years you're free to do it once again.
But putting limits and then attacking people respecting the limits? To me it's the sign of something deeply rotten in the state and that such laws exists isn't something that should be cheered.
Your real estate example is not a great fit, because real estate transfers are not common. That particular tax-free status on the transfers would probably be best interpreted as a carve out or loophole, with the normal status being that the transactions should be taxed.
On the other hand, depositing money is the normal status. Depositing what amounts to large sums over arbitrary periods of time is also normal. Directly to the point, the limit in place is not a restriction, but merely one that triggers mandatory reporting. The limit is very clear and absolute -- though at their discretion banks may report smaller transactions. Structuring is specifically about avoiding that limit and the accompanying questions and reporting.
So how would you rewrite this law to require mandatory reporting, but also not allow structuring? Because it's not apparently trivial how to achieve that goal any better than they did.
I feel like the signal-to-noise ratio must be terrible, especially as inflation gradually lowers the meaning of a $10,000 reporting limit. Selling a used car is enough to trigger a reportable amount of cash.
I'd think what we need is less magic numbers, and instead a better training/reporting ecosystem that insulates people with good intentions but gives them the right tools to identify criminal behaviour.
Actually expecting banks to know their customers at a personal level should be the goal.
I suspect, in contrast, everyone involved likes a fixed 10k limit because it provides a convenient liability hand-off. Compliance can be automated on a much greater level and they can say "we filled out the appropriate forms when required, how were we supposed to know that Hamas Cupcakes Inc was a front?"
Agreed on the last bit. Having a clear-cut line where "this must be reported" is I think necessary for liability reasons. There are definitely other transactions that should be reported, in the spirit of the actual AML (anti money laundering) issue. But I think it's necessary to be able to say, in a legal setting, that the required obligation was met and discharged, even if something happened that probably should have been caught.
The government is well-aware of how inflation erodes reporting thresholds. If you look at the obligation to report non-US bank accounts to FinCEN, they've indexed the penalties ($10,000 per line item) to inflation but not the $10,000 aggregate reporting threshold.
I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. It's basically a law that bans attempts to comply with the letter of another law without complying with its spirit. Complying with any law should be completely straightforward.
I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring.
So there are two possibilities.
1. You think the government shouldn't be allowed to track money laundering
2. You have a suggestion on improving money laundering tracking without anti-structuring laws
If you believe the government has a legitimate vested interest in stopping money laundering and you set a $10,000 limit before something must be reported, the reporting requirement might as well not exist if someone can deposit $9999.99 literally 100 times per day without a report being generated.
So what would your suggestion be on how to track money laundering? Or do you just think that's none of the government's business?
The answer isn't to then set the $10,000 limit and add an opaque criteria of "but the limit doesn't matter if we look at your transactions and think you are hiding something".
Something more reasonable may be: a limit of $10,000 per month (or any time frame) before mandatory reporting. That of course means dropping the hand wavy exception completely.
Yes, but the same intent provisions still apply to the entity that enabled the structuring. Tornado Cash has legitimate use cases - I had one prior to the OFAC issue (hiding the source of funds to an address in order to prevent certain bots from reacting to it). So the devs cannot have formed intent to aid in any of the crimes that TC may have unwittingly enabled.
Casinos are used as vehicles for structuring and money laundering every minute of every day - on a much larger scale than anything Tornado Cash could ever have achieved. They don't have the intent to aid in these activities though, which is why they are allowed to operate.
[Casinos] don't have the intent to aid in these activities though, which is why they are allowed to operate.
Casinos are allowed to operate because not only do they not have the intent to aid these activities, they happily track and report everything they're required which is just as much as a bank is required. They aren't the hotbed of money laundering you seem to think they are.
They aren't the hotbed of money laundering you seem to think they are.
I spent a fair amount of time in the gaming business, and I can tell you that this statement is patently false. Very little of it gets caught, because the people involved in such schemes know what the rules are and simply work around them. Casinos themselves also sometimes turn a blind eye to such activity when it is especially profitable for them. Example [1]. That occurred even with the reporting requirements.
There really seems to be a lot of mental gymnastics going on here.
Your original point was that casinos are allowed to operate because of their "lack of intent". I respond that it's actually because they're as heavily regulated as banks are. Your response is, "But sometimes they break the law!"
Who cares? Casinos are heavily regulated and most of the time they follow their regulations. Or they would be shut down.
And here we go back to the real original point... what regulations were Tornado Cash following? Were they ever following AML/BSA regulations? Did they do anything significant to attempt to comply with regulations that all money exchange companies have to comply with?
Your little example of Casino money laundering was $47 million and was touted as “the largest all-cash, up-front gambler the Venetian-Palazzo had ever had to that point,”.
Now read that link from treasury.gov:
Tornado Cash, which has been used to launder more than $7 billion worth of virtual currency since its creation in 2019. This includes over $455 million stolen by the Lazarus Group, a Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) state-sponsored hacking group
It's not even comparable. $47 million is 0.6% of $7 billion. Tornado Cash's raison d'être was money laundering and it was right to shut them down.
Structuring is one of the most common methods of facilitating money laundering.
No predicate offense required. It’s illegal all on its own.
https://bsaaml.ffiec.gov/manual/Appendices/08