I think it’s more than the Mann act… he was also laundering money… and if he sent money through the US Post office, that’s mail fraud.
When he initially made his announcement on Monday, I thought for sure he was trying to cut his best deal. But after hearing him speak today I think he’s going to be disbarred as well as be charged with crimes… i don’t think he’s walking from this with a deal. He said it himself that he’s held to a higher standard and that he’s accountable for his actions. I think he’s going down.
I think the feds are the ones that are making this an issue. And it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if he wasn’t such a hard-assed hypocrite who was hellbent on destroying others for the same kind of crimes; and destroying others who were innocent…
There are many people gloating today, not just the republicans. Spitzer is the epitome of arrogance and bullying. This is karma at its finest.
oh, you know what, spitzer did a fine job of taking down a perfectly respectable ;)prostitution ring… and now all these high-profile johns are probably horrified that they will be exposed. Nice going, spitz
He wasn’t “laundering” money, he allegedly was “structuring payments,” which is different from laundering. He might have been concealing what he did with his money , but it turns out he had a perfectly innocent explanation, so I see no reason to prosecute.
Cite that he used the Post Office and how is mailing his own money (which he did not gain by any illegal or illegitimate means) “mail fraud?”
I think you’re wrong. I’m guessing it’s over. And do lawyers routinely get disbarred for banging call girls? I think that’s a pretty far fetched. Nothing he did involved subverting or corrupting anything in the courts.
That’s the crux of it right there, it isn’t that he really did anything so terrible, it’s just that people who don’t like him want to use this rather minor indiscretion to destroy him. Even if he’s a hypocrite, two wrongs don’t make a right. At the end of the day, all he really did was cheat on his wife.
He’s not your regular john. He was the former NYS attorney general and the current governor…and as a result he’s held to a different standard. It might sound far fetched if he was just the regular john, say like, Trump. But it’s not the case for Spitzer… I’ll bet he’s at least disbarred.
We’ll see if that’s all he did at the end of the day… we’ll see if he’s charged with anything. We don’t know all the real details yet.
I don’t think he would have resigned if it was just a matter of him cheating on his wife. His wife even encouraged him not to resign… but apparently the feds and his attorneys suggested that he did.
He wasn’t euphemistically structuring payments. He’s alleged to have transferred large sums of cash into shell companies and then transferred payments from those bogus accounts to a Brooklyn-based escort service. His sole intent was to conceal his identity *and * avoid piquing the interest of the tax men. That’s the literal definition of money laundering.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the idea, prostitution is still illegal. Governor Spitzer was repeatedly breaking the law as well as cheating on his wife.
No. money laundering is about concealing the source of one’s ill-gotten income. This was Spitzer’s own money. he wasn’t concealing its source, he was concealing his purchases. I don’t know why that’s against the law. He wasn’t concealing income.
IANAL, but I’m guessing the legal liability of being responsible for somebody else evading their taxes is pretty narrow.
I leave a cash tip on the table rather than add it to my credit card bill. Does that make it theoretically easier for my waiter to avoid claiming it as income and paying tax on it? Sure. But his decison to evade his taxes is not my responsibility.
From the news today, a charge of money laundering is still a possibility:
It’s a mischaracterization of the facts to say that all he did was cheat on his wife. You may think what he did should not be illegal, but that doesn’t make it legal.
That doesn’t say there’s any evidence of money laundering. It’s only a tautological statement taht he could be charged with money laundering if there’s any evidence of money laundering (which there isn’t).
He tried to conceal what he was using his own money for. That’s not laundering. No matter how sinister you try to make his actions out to be, it still adds up to nothing but cheating on his wife.
You should look up what “proceeds” means. He wasn’t hiding or laundering any “proceeds.” He was using his own money which was not gotten through any illegal means.
No. You should look up what “transaction reporting” means. I have given you the facts, but I guess I can’t force you to accept them. I’m simply going to state, for the last time, that you are wrong. You’ve been proven wrong. If you want to continue posting factually incorrect information, I can’t stop you. The wikipedia article explains things as well:
Learn how to parse what you’re reading. I’m NOT wrong. The clause you’re quoting from is dependent on the transaction being made with illegally obtained proceeds. Read the entire thing again and remember that everything after (A) is dependent on (a)(1).
