I think the idea is, as it is foreign money, the IRS or other govt agencies do not have a stake in its provenance. The russian version of the IRS would be interested in where he made the money, but I am sure that’s not a problem.
Then why not just bring in briefcases of foreign cash and put it directly into the bank?
Actually, there are limits on transporting cash, but much more generous limits on wiring funds to buy RE.
The Russkis are not likely buying the condo with breifcases of greenbacks, they wire the funds to a bank, etc.
Now, of course funds in a bank can be demanded back, frozen, etc, but it is harder to do that with Real estate. Then after you sell the RE, turning it into honest cash, it makes it even harder to recover or trace.
Tell me; what ability does any news organization have to uncover “evidence” of money laundering? Can they subpoena bank records? The whole point of money laundering is to obscure the source of cash and make the money you have look legitimate. All a news group can do is publish facts that might lead one to conclude there is more to learn about the activities.
So yes, news organizations are bound to say they have no evidence of criminal activity. No one would have actual proof, except law enforcement agencies with access to the private information needed. Say, I wonder who might be looking into that?
Trump holds his companies privately, has no watchdogs over his activities such as a board of directors or shareholders. His “legitimate” means of making money is to license his name, slapping it all over buildings and products. But my, there are sure some suspicious transactions. I think most people can draw reasonable conclusions about what Trump probably does for a living based on what is publicly known, one that offers an explanation for why he holds his tax records closer than he holds our classified national intelligence secrets.
Meantime, what a relief to know the man who occupies the Oval made his fortune in such an honorable way, fraternizing and doing business with all manner of shady people. We can rest easy, knowing there is “no evidence” of money laundering and he has not (yet) been charged with a crime.
I don’t know if the dwelling that is the subject of the OP was a money-laundered enterprise, but we’ll know soon. And most of Trump’s real estate transactions bear a lot more scrutiny than they had drawn up to the time he entered the White House. They’re getting it now.
I encourage you to read the articles. You might learn some new things about your “president.” Try to keep an open mind.
If you don’t think news organizations can find evidence of money laundering, why did you post news articles as evidence of money laundering?
I did read them, and they said what was quoted above.
Money laundering is a crime. Your articles say there is no evidence of a crime. So you think Trump has broken the law, and the fact that there is no evidence shows - something or other.
Regards,
Shodan
Having now read the articles (you stated above that you hadn’t), do you genuinely believe Trump has not committed the crime of money laundering?
They certainly look fishy, worthy of a professional ivestigation. But no, I would not say that.
You probably thought that was a rhetorical question. Sadly you are more right than you might have guessed:
That is nothing to do with the issue in this thread but it was money laundering by walking through the front door of a bank with the cash. So yeah…it happens.
And don’t forget that the Obama administration refused to prosecute this (HSBC even admitted to it).
Hahaha. Him? Yeahrite.
This thread makes my brain chafe. Certain posters seem convinced that he’s a money launderer and are trying to fit the facts to that conclusion rather than the other way around. Keeping an open mind does seem like sage advice in both directions.
If we take a step back, the point of money laundering is to obfuscate the source of money. Simply buying a piece of real estate doesn’t necessarily accomplish this goal, e.g., in the case I detailed in the OP, the buyer’s name and amount paid were all very public, so absolutely no obfuscation was accomplished. I don’t see how that sale fits any pattern for money laundering, and I have to admit, I don’t understand the calls for further investigation.
On the other hand, we had an excellent article posted in this thread that explains how condos in south Florida are used to launder money. In those cases, companies are set up on paper to transfer illicit money around, changing the form of the asset and mixing it with other assets along the way (dirty money to commodities to real estate to clean money, for example). The key component of the laundering here is the paper companies that exist only to conceal people’s identities and stymie the efforts of investigators, who have to unravel a complicated chain of events in order to trace the clean money back to an illicit source.
I’m almost certain that a good percentage of Trump properties are regular components in these chains of obfuscation, and in that sense I think Aspenglow’s bold statement that “money laundering is Trump’s business” is accurate. In the same way that the hourly-hotel-owner isn’t jerking of johns, but he wouldn’t have an income if it weren’t for all the rampant prostitution he was ignoring.
It’s possible that Trump is more involved than just being a willing patsy, but that evidence has yet to come out. I think it’s more likely that Trump is known as being someone who’s willing not to ask questions; I also think the gaudy nature and location of his properties are simply attractive to a certain type of character. But with the evidence we have, I think the question is whether or not turning a blind eye is enough to skirt the law. I think Trump’s involvement in money laundering operations is certainly immoral, but I don’t know enough about the law to say with any certainty that it’s illegal. And I don’t think it’s accurate to describe turning a blind eye to money laundering as doing the laundering itself.
Maybe I missed it. Where are the criminal charges in there?
Hard to charge a Corp. But it’s a plea bargain deal, the administration did prosecute, that is normally how these things play out. Note there is also a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. That means, they did prosecute, just they have deferred charges.
I am willing to bet if it was you or me we’d have seen the inside of a jail pretty quickly.
And it is possible to hold employees of a corporation responsible for criminal behavior.
This doesn’t appear to me to be an attempt by Rybolovlev to launder the money, but another one of many similar wealth stashes. If he has to boot it out of Russia after a falling out with Putin, he has expensive real estate safely outside Putin’s reach that he can turn back into cash. He may lose money on the resale, but most of his wealth will be safe.
I believe the issue was about hiding his money from his wife in the divorce, but same difference. It’s ironic that it’s costing him as much to ‘stash his wealth’ as to give it to her. And it’s still money laundering regardless.