# Zimmerman's charged with perjury **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975 "2012-06-13T00:27:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/61 "2012-06-13T15:16:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a bad point, then. There is no reporting requirement for the recipient of a gift. Period. > > What do you contend are the “potential tax consequences” or the “reporting requirements” for the recipient of a gift? The source of the funds nor the tax implications really matter in a charge of structuring. E.G. from U.S. v. MacPherson (although this is a 2nd circuit decision) “If a defendant structures cash transactions knowing that the financial institution involved is obligated to report transactions exceeding $10,000 and intending to evade that requirement, he is guilty of structuring without regard to whether the cash at issue represents criminal or lawful proceeds. More to the point, whether or not a § 5324 prosecution relates to criminal proceeds, a jury may properly consider the pattern of structuring activities and draw reasonable inferences therefrom as to whether the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/62 "2012-06-13T15:16:44Z")
> [@Amasia](#): > > Again, we don’t know exactly what happened because of the scant details. However, I found several articles stating that Zimmerman’s wife transferred close to $50,000 to the sister. If those were true gifts, than up to 13k (IIRC) is federally non-taxable as a gift per anum, but that doesn’t mean that it’s also non-reportable. There’s a difference between non-taxable and non-reportable. If you see a bunch of transactions for $9990 that’s a huge red flag that the person is trying the reporting requirement, which where she could face federal charges. There is a difference between a gift “giver” and the gift “recipient”. The money sent to the website would be a gift to the Zimmermans. The Zimmerman’s would owe no tax on it. Money transfered from that account to either of the Zimmerman’s personal accounts wouldn’t be taxed either. I believe that any money transfered to the sister must be reported to the IRS. Eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/63 "2012-06-13T15:19:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Even that is not true. Over $13K, the amount that is over is subtracted from your lifetime gift exclusion ($5.2M I think). Only if you go over the lifetime exclusion sum in your overages will you owe tax on the gift. Good point. Over $13K in a single year, the gift giver owes a report. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/64 "2012-06-13T15:21:40Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The source of the funds nor the tax implications really matter in a charge of structuring. > > E.G. from U.S. v. MacPherson (although this is a 2nd circuit decision) > > “If a defendant structures cash transactions knowing that the financial institution involved is obligated to report transactions exceeding $10,000 and intending to evade that requirement, he is guilty of structuring without regard to whether the cash at issue represents criminal or lawful proceeds. More to the point, whether or not a § 5324 prosecution relates to criminal proceeds, a jury may properly consider the pattern of structuring activities and draw reasonable inferences therefrom as to whether the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea.” Were these cash transactions? My first thought was that they were cash. Wire transfers are not cash, though, as far as I know. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/65 "2012-06-13T15:27:02Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > There is a difference between a gift “giver” and the gift “recipient”. The money sent to the website would be a gift to the Zimmermans. The Zimmerman’s would owe no tax on it. Money transfered from that account to either of the Zimmerman’s personal accounts wouldn’t be taxed either. I believe that any money transfered to the sister must be reported to the IRS. Eventually. I shouldn’t have mentioned the 13k limit because that confused the point I was trying to make (which has nothing to do with income tax). I agree with most of what you said, except that the transfers of over 10k that are reportable must be reported within 15 days of the transaction- which has already passed. Anyways, the greater point is that moving money to appear indigent is stupid and structuring transfers in a way that looks like you are trying to avoid IRS reporting requirements is ever stupider. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/66 "2012-06-13T15:27:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Were these cash transactions? > > My first thought was that they were cash. Wire transfers are not cash, though, as far as I know. Parts were, Yes, Mr. Zimmerman instructed his wife to have 10K in cash on hand and clarified it should be less than 10. That shows intent to avoid the reporting requirement. It is not clear if the rule applies when transferring between two individuals private accounts as cash. It does apply to bank check, travelers checks etc… ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/67 "2012-06-13T15:31:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t understand what you’re asking here. The point of allowing a defendant to be bailed out of jail is that the defendant is giving up a significant amount of money as a guarantee he’ll show up for trial. Shellie Zimmerman said they basically had no money, and that was taken into account when the court determined George Zimmerman’s bail. The prosecution asked for bail to be set at $1 million; based in part on Shellie Zimmerman’s testimony, it was set at $150,000. The idea as I understand it is that if you lie about your financial standing or say you’re broke when you aren’t, the bail payment is less and maybe you decide you’re willing to give up the money and flee. (I’m not saying that’s what the Zimmermans were doing, just that that’s the principle.) Now he’s back in jail and may not get bail again, and if he does, it’ll be a greater amount that more accurately reflects the money they have. I don’t understand your response, because it says that she lied about money. Her money. That’s what bail is, money. And since they’re married, his money is her money, and she lied about not having it. Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing: > [@DigitalC](#): > > I don’t understand this “she lied for her spouse” stuff. She lied for the money, not for George. > > > [@Marley23](#): > > > > That’s not clear. I presume she lied to keep his bail down and make it easier for him to get out of prison. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/68 "2012-06-13T15:31:28Z")
FYI In United States v. Jaime Ruiz-Estrella the defendant was charged with structuring for wire transfers. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/69 "2012-06-13T15:35:14Z")
I should state these cases were drug dealers, getting a Federal Grand Jury to agree with the charge of structuring is not guaranteed in this case. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/70 "2012-06-13T15:35:32Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The source of the funds nor the tax implications really matter in a charge of structuring. > > E.G. from U.S. v. MacPherson (although this is a 2nd circuit decision) > > “If a defendant structures cash transactions knowing that the financial institution involved is obligated to report transactions exceeding $10,000 and intending to evade that requirement, he is guilty of structuring without regard to whether the cash at issue represents criminal or lawful proceeds. More to the point, whether or not a § 5324 prosecution relates to criminal proceeds, a jury may properly consider the pattern of structuring activities and draw reasonable inferences therefrom as to whether the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea.” Zimmerman’s wife lied under oath and so did Corey. The wife lied about having money available and Corey didn’t tell the whole truth on the affidavit she filed. Zimmerman’s parent (father) also testified under oath about being unable to provide bail money. Can I assume that Corey will go after them next? I’m beginning to think that Zimmerman should fire O’Mara and cut a deal with Corey before his whole family ends up in prison. Who owes what to the IRS is just an interesting side issue. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/71 "2012-06-13T15:37:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t understand your response, because it says that she lied about money. Her money. That’s what bail is, money. And since they’re married, his money is her money, and she lied about not having it. OK. I don’t see any of that as being in dispute. You said she lied for money and not for him, so I thought you were saying her primary motive was financial and helping him was secondary. (Meaning perhaps that she was hoping to keep the money.) I think that those motivations were at least equal. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/72 "2012-06-13T15:45:06Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Zimmerman’s wife lied under oath and so did Corey. The wife lied about having money available and Corey didn’t tell the whole truth on the affidavit she filed. Zimmerman’s parent (father) also testified under oath about being unable to provide bail money. Can I assume that Corey will go after them next? > > I’m beginning to think that Zimmerman should fire O’Mara and cut a deal with Corey before his whole family ends up in prison. > > Who owes what to the IRS is just an interesting side issue. Please don’t make any assumptions on what my wishes or even if I think the prosecution actions are justified, I have made no such statement. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/73 "2012-06-13T15:52:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t understand the “dirty trick” objections. She lied, under oath, about a subject material to the testimony she was giving. That’s why we have a crime of perjury. > > I also am not sure I understand the claims that this will hurt George’s credibility at trial. > > Can someone sketch out hso this will happen? I think the “dirty trick” is the tying of the two together. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/74 "2012-06-13T15:58:57Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not clear. I presume she lied to keep his bail down and make it easier for him to get out of prison. They HAD the money to get him out of prison, they did not want to spend it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/75 "2012-06-13T16:00:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not a lawyer, but my thought was that if he was involved in lying about his finances in order to keep his bail down, get out of prison more easily, or something of that nature, it’ll hurt his credibility at trial. If that’s not the case because this issue is inadmissible at his trial or the court doesn’t believe he’s involved, then I guess it would not hurt his defense. Yes, it would be inadmissible at his trial. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/76 "2012-06-13T16:01:44Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I think the “dirty trick” is the tying of the two together. Has that happened? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/77 "2012-06-13T16:04:28Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > They HAD the money to get him out of prison, they did not want to spend it. Agreed. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, it would be inadmissible at his trial. Lucky for him, then. But I’ll stand by my contention that this was a stupid thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/78 "2012-06-13T16:12:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > OK. I don’t see any of that as being in dispute. You said she lied for money and not for him, so I thought you were saying her primary motive was financial and helping him was secondary. (Meaning perhaps that she was hoping to keep the money.) I think that those motivations were at least equal. It’s certainly possible that part or all of her motivation was helping her husband stay out of jail, no question there. But we know by definition she had a financial benefit in lying. I also assume some part of it was concern for her husband. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/79 "2012-06-13T16:20:45Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Please don’t make any assumptions on what my wishes or even if I think the prosecution actions are justified, I have made no such statement. Was this response supposed to be directed at moi? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975/80 "2012-06-13T16:22:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I also am not sure I understand the claims that this will hurt George’s credibility at trial. > > Can someone sketch out how this will happen? IANAL… but from the linked [article](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018415532_apusneighborhoodwatchperjury.html): “Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead the court down the primrose path? That’s the issue,” (Judge) Lester said in revoking Zimmerman’s bond. “He can’t sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods.” Seems damaging, especially coming from the judge. But it has been suggested by others here that perhaps this can’t come up in his murder trial. I don’t know one way or the other there. Also, I’ll note that this was about his bond, and not his wife’s perjury, but as a layman, to me they all seem very much connected. I’ve no idea whether this obvious deceit can be legally connected in court, but it _should_ be IMO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zimmermans-charged-with-perjury/624975.md?page=5)