LF: Widow faces federal charges because she deposited inheritance money in lumps

Title: Widow faces federal charges because she deposited inheritance money in lumps
Source: Police State USA
URL Source: http://www.policestateusa.com/2015/janet-malone-irs-seizure/
Published: Feb 10, 2015
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2015-02-14 10:28:41 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 4236
Comments: 36

Justice in America

DUBUQUE, IA — A widow’s bank account was seized by the IRS and she now faces criminal charges for depositing her legal inheritance money in lumps instead of all together.

Janet Malone, 68, had $18,775 seized from her — money that was legally earned and was legally bestowed to her by her late husband, Ronald Malone. The problem, according to the government, was the fact that she deposited it in several lumps instead of all at once.

According to the Associated Press, Mrs. Malone deposited the cash in increments between $5,800 and $9,000. The widow’s private financial affairs evidently set off red flags under the watchful gaze of the federal government.

The IRS sought out and obtained a warrant in 2013 to seize Mrs. Malone’s bank account based on suspicion that the transactions were sized in strategic amounts meant to avoid federal reporting requirements, which take place on transactions valued at $10,000 or more. The crime is referred to as “structuring” one’s deposits.

Police State USA described this offensive law in a previous article:

The federal government began surveilling Americans’ banking activities under President Nixon with the The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which required that banks file “Currency Transaction Reports” to the IRS (specifically: FinCEN Form 112) on every individual who deposits or withdraws more than $10,000 in cash to or from a personal bank account on a given day. These reports indicate the financial activities that took place and include the individual’s bank account number, name, address, and social security number.
The financial dragnet was pitched to America as a way to catch tax evaders and money launderers. It actually marked the end of financial privacy and soon evolved into a tool used to harass innocent Americans. The IRS enjoyed a battery of new powers, which were increased several times thereafter.
In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded financial surveillance efforts to the so-called War on Terror. The Patriot Act was said to contain a “package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state,” according to one of bill’s few dissenters, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Among other things, the law prohibited bankers from informing customers that they had been reported to the IRS. Paul said the bill had “more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism,”

Once accused of structuring deposits, Americans are deprived of their bank accounts and forced to prove their innocence using whatever remaining resources they can scrape together. Some manage to eventually get their money back, after months of fighting in court. Due to the high cost of legal services, the victims sometimes decide to accept the loss and not invest thousands more into the ordeal.

“You won’t prosecute a widow,” Janet Malone pleaded, according to an affidavit. The government accepted her challenge.

Prosecutors not only declined to drop the civil forfeiture case against Mrs. Malone, but also slapped the widow with federal misdemeanor charges that she willfully structured her deposits.

The AP reported that Mrs. Malone is expected to plead guilty and let the government keep her money, in a plea exchange for her freedom. The charge carries up to one year in jail and a $250,000 fine.

Victims like Mrs. Malone are not unique. Police State USA wrote about another Iowa woman who recently had her entire bank account seized for the exact same reason. These women, and many other victims of forfeiture, harmed no one and were minding their own business.

One might observe the irony of demanding FinCEN reports, as it seems a bit redundant given the government’s disturbing ability to surveil bank accounts and detect Americans “avoiding” the reporting requirements.

IRS agent Jeff McGuire first went to Malone's home in 2011 to investigate alleged structuring by Ronald Malone, who was dying of cancer, records show. Ronald Malone admitted that bank deposits totaling $35,500 he'd made could appear to be structured and signed a form acknowledging he'd been warned about the law; no charges were filed. Janet Malone was present for part of the meeting.

Shortly before his death in October 2011, Ronald Malone told his wife about a briefcase containing $180,000 cash from his job as a publishing executive, gambling winnings and investment income. She deposited some of it in increments between $5,800 and $9,000. The IRS obtained a warrant to seize it based on suspicion that the transactions were meant to avoid reporting requirements.

Janet Malone was irate when she learned of the 2013 seizure, noting that she didn't sign the form warning her husband and didn't remember details of the earlier visit because "she was in a state of despair over her husband's health," according to an IRS affidavit.

You won't prosecute a widow," Malone said, according to the affidavit. McGuire responded that the family had been given a pass from the IRS once.

She's not very smart. She should have lived off the cash, stored secretly in her house and deposited her SS checks and any other legal incomes.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

No doubt something a great many people do, especially when stories like these are publicized. And those people harm no one, just as this woman harmed no one. Note there is no allegation that the money was obtained related to any illegal activity and no tax disputes either.

If she's not smart, it was because she assumed that because she harmed no one, there would be no heavy hand from the gov to punish her and steal her money. To that end, I agree she was not very smart at all.

Then she would not have received the .03% interest on her savings from the bank.

Really? And just what is the source for your " rest of the story "? Your own access to govt files?

The deceased man apparently didn't trust banks. I wonder what his gambling winnings came from.

Sure he did. He was trying to sneak it into the banks. The IRS warned him not to do so. Then his wife picked up where he left off.

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

Yes she is! She is lucky they did not do a "no knock" raid at 0 dark thirty, kill her and any dog or kitten she might have. Then they could have confiscated the property, sold it at auction.

I bet they would never have bothered her if her name had been Bush, Clinton, Rove, Cheney, Biden, or some other such fine family.

Defendant made structured cash deposits totaling $89,100
into her Dubuque Bank and Trust account XXX568
from June 2012 to November 2012.

The deposits were as follows:
06/19/2012 Tuesday $8,000.00
06/20/2012 Wednesday $8,000.00
06/21/2012 Thursday $5,800.00
06/22/2012 Friday $7,000.00
06/25/2012 Monday $7,700.00
06/26/2012 Tuesday $8,000.00
08/13/2012 Monday $8,000.00
08/27/2012 Monday $6,000.00
09/25/2012 Tuesday $9,000.00
09/27/2012 Thursday $6,000.00
11/09/2012 Monday $7,000.00
11/12/2012 Monday $8,600.00

"FORFEITURE
15.~ Defendant agrees to the civil forfeiture of $18,775.38 in C14-1001.
This forfeiture will be resolved under separate settlement documents."

Yeah, well her & her husband were obviously big time "criminals", public enemy number 1, and a real danger to the public. She "deserves" what she gets, because as we will be reminded: " she broke THE LAW ! ,she broke THE LAW ! ,she broke THE LAW ! "

Her only crime was "harming no one", offending only one of big brother's myriads of bureaucratic mandates.

â€œPolitical correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€

Are you saying people can do anything they want to as long as it "harms no one?"

She's not smart because most likely she knew the tax law, and decided to violate it because she didn't think she would get caught, they wouldn't punish a widow or she didn't agree with the tax code. Either way, she should have obeyed the law or at least violate it in a way she wouldn't get caught (like deposit SS sized checks, every month and spend the unreported cash to live)

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

Yeah... when you are knowingly violating a tax code, it's not smart to do it in such a way that Ray Charles could see it.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

You like picking on widows, minorities, business owners and kids while you glorify the cop, politician and government SCUM.

Here’s what happened to in Mohammed Jabal in Dallas, according to the press release issued by the U.S. Attorney General’s Office:

It is not a crime to deposit $9000 every day of the year, if that is what one's business calls for.

So under this law, 2 people can do the exact same thing, with one person breaking the law and the other not, solely because of the difference of intention, and neither generating any victim.

That's definitely an indication of a unjust law because it criminalizes thought.

This is bizarre. Most life insurance today is not paid out in a one lump sum. Even so if below a certain threshold it is not taxable income.

Most insurance companies set up CMA accounts which a surviving spouse can withdraw from as needed like a money market account. The lady in this piece probably deducted enough to cover he cost of living. The feds need to scram on this.

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.