You're getting fixated on a Warner witch hunt, which, if you read back over the posts, does not exist. I am merely expressing my opinion that this incident should be investigated as there are INDICATIONS that laws MAY have been broken. Thats the reason you investigate...to discover if crime has been comitted. It sounds like you feel that unless you have a signed confession, police shouldn't even pull on their boots.
What are these "INDICATIONS"... and what laws do you think "MAY" have been broken? I've asked this over and over again in this thread and I'm still not sure I've gotten an answer. You keep coming up with shifting justifications as to why Jack should be investigated... and I think this is why, to me at least, your desire to see an investigation seems more personal than cursory. You claim that he 'may' have violated the Exchange Control Act's requirement to declare US cash in excess of $5,000... yet there isn't even an allegation that he brought cash into the country.... just conjecture... a guess that he 'may' have.
You next focused on the possibility that he "may" have violated anti-money laundering laws... based on nothing more than the fact that large sums were wired into an account (Jack Warner's? CFU's? TTFF's?... we don't know) and that Jack 'may' have withdrawn funds from that account. Mind you, the man has several legitimate sources of large income... but he should be investigated, "if he's innocent then he should have nothing to hide", right? Exploring this logic I even suggested you invite the police into your home for a "pre-cautionary" search whenever they feel like it. I don't believe I got a direct response... the analogy possibly lost on you.
You even brought up the notion that the US (and even ribbit decided to stick his nose in to state the obvious on this one) has AML laws requiring disclosure. Maybe in the UK they go about poking their noses into people's affairs in a haphazard way, but at least in the US there are guidelines and procedures.
According to the Bank Security Act banks, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries are required by federal regulations to file a suspicious activity report with respect to:
- Criminal violations involving insider abuse in any amount.
- Criminal violations aggregating $5,000 or more when a suspect can be identified.
- Criminal violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect.
- Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more, if the bank or affiliate knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction:
- May involve potential money laundering or other illegal activity (e.g., terrorism financing).
- Is designed to evade the BSA or its implementing regulations.
- Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the type of transaction that the particular customer would normally be expected to engage in, and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
Pay particular attention to the bolded. I fail to see which of these applies to the alleged transaction at issue.
Hooray, at last you understand what I've been saying!! But first, you keep erronously stating that I find it suspicious that money was wired into the country. I don't, because aside from the imbalance between bin Hammams US$360,000 and Jacks stated costs of US$260,000, I know nothing about any wired amounts. In fact, I recall that it was you who suggested the "bribe" money may have been wired. I believe, and always have believed that bin Hammam may have carried US$1 million personally into the country. Contrary to your beliefs, police are supposed to prevent and detect crime. As said countless times before, if they think US$1 million may have been illegally brought into the country, they have a duty to investigate. Why is this so hard to understand? They wouldn't be accusing anyone of anything. They would be investigating a very high profile incident.
As for the BSA act, you just proved exactly the point I was making.
•Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more, if the bank or affiliate knows,
suspects, or has
reason to suspect that the transaction:
◦May involve
potential money laundering or other illegal activity (e.g., terrorism financing).
◦
Is designed to evade the BSA or its implementing regulations.
◦Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is
not the type of transaction that the particular customer would normally be expected to engage in, and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
I don't care if bin Hammam and Jack Warner are viewed as the twin second coming, walking around with US$1 million is neither normal or without suspicion. Please give me an example where, lets say, Flickin Killas' contractor needs US$1 million in cash. Why? There are so many reasons why this shouldn't happen (risk of robbery, tax evasion, money laundering) but what would be a legitimate reason for a legitimate businessman, or even Warner, to carry that cash around?
And yes, I have come home to find a police notice saying my house has been entered and searched by the police looking for illegal drugs and firearms. It was a shock, to be sure, but after calling the detective who led the search, and who was very polite and courteous, I accepted his reasons. And look, here I am, no harm done, no scars, no shame (except my wife wondering if they discovered her vibrator)