« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
1987 Jaguar XJS.
The jury returned a verdict of seizure in Cr. No. 890162 but the Government has been unable to seize this car. The VIN number has been entered in the National Criminal Information Computer along with instructions that the car, once located, is to be seized.
Violator ID: Rayful Edmond III.
Original Owner ID: Keith Hawkins.
Forfeiture Date: Not applicable.
Disposition Date: Not applicable.
Initial Appraised Value: Not applicable.
Subsequent Appraisal: Not applicable.
Costs Incurred: Not applicable.
Lien Payments: Not applicable.
Sale Price: Not applicable.
Buyer ID: Not applicable.
Chairman PICKLE. Mr. Keeney before you go, let me ask this broad question. It seems to me that the Justice Department prosecutes criminals now under other statues because of stiffer fines and longer sentences.
Now, under 60501, if the penalties and fines were increased, would they be more likely to be processed, that the Justice Department would then follow them to bring them to prosecution?
Mr. HARBIN. An increase in all sanctions, civil and criminal, would have the beneficial effect not only of increasing compliance but also of increasing the likelihood that we would bring prosecutions under 60501. I think as Mr. Keeney said, the problem with the lack of prosecutions has not been lack of commitment on the part of the Department of Justice to bring these cases. It has nothing to do with the sanctions per se so much as the cases are not being presented.
My new office, the money laundering office has sample indictments and jury instructions ready to go when we have a case to bring to indictment. We are ready to go.
Mr. KEENEY. I would like to add that the criminal penalties are substantial. I think the civil penalties could and should be increased and make the merchant pay a substantial penalty for his greed even though the evidence may not be sufficient for the criminal prosecution.
Chairman PICKLE. We have discussed this morning the possibility of increasing civil penalties and other corrections. Obviously, if the penalties are too low, you will not have much prosecution and not much enforcement of it. So we may need to make them stiffer and lay the groundwork for prosecution if it is not complied with.
We tried to make estimates how much the U.S. Treasury is losing because of the narcotics problem. It goes into billions. It is an enormous problem to try to get your hands on and try to handle it.
I have a feeling that literally billions of dollars are not being collected now simply because of the underground economy, the underground practices of these cash transactions and the business community as a whole is being allowed to go forward.
Nobody knows the sum. But it is so prevalent that there is hardly any adherence to it. I think all of us together have to work to do a better job. I appreciate it, Mr. Keeney, that you said you will try to be better and try to be active on it. We would like you to make some specific suggestions and we would like to have your responses as we go forward. We don't want to change the statute and change it so it causes more trouble than it helps. You can do that in haste. We are struggling with this problem. As we struggle in the narcotics field we also have to say that the law has to be enforced in the business community. So we ask your cooperation. Do you have any other questions, Mr. Shaw?
Mr. SHAW. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman PICKLE. I thank you.
I appreciate very much your patience. I know you came early and you had to stay a long time. We wanted to get all this information on the record. Your testimony has been very helpful.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, before we do conclude, I would like to add my compliments that the other members have stated to our
staff and the borrowed staff who are now real gutsy shoppers that they did the entire country a tremendous service by showing in a very public way what is going on out there.
I think they sent a strong message not only to us but also to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Department of Justice. I think you, Mr. Chairman, have certainly done yourself proud by having this hearing and really fulfilling the true purpose of an oversight hearing in the United States Congress.
Chairman PICKLE. Thank you, Mr. Shaw. I thank all the committee members. I am pleased that you would make note of the very effective work of the staff of this committee.
Now this committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional questions to the Department of Justice and their responses follow:]
Please provide answers to the following additional questions for the record of the September 20, 1990 Subcommittee hearing on money laundering.
1. What are the Department of Justice guidelines for referral by
2. Provide copies of the sample 60501 indictment and sample jury
In order to timely close the hearing record for this hearing,
We are responding to your additional question for the record of the September 20, 1990, Subcommittee hearing on money laundering, requesting Department of Justice guidelines for referral by the Internal Revenue Service of cases involving potential criminal violations of Internal Revenue Code Section 6050I.
Our guidelines are reflected in Tax Division Directive No. 87-61, Delegation of Authority for Tax Prosecutions Involving Returns under 26 U.S.C. Section 60501, a copy of which is enclosed. In general, Directive No. 87-61 delegates to the United States Attorneys authority to authorize certain tax prosecutions under 26 U.S.C. Sections 7203 and 7206 with respect to the filing or failure to file returns prescribed by 26 U.S.C. Section 60501 (IRS Form 8300). The types of prosecutions specifically excluded from this delegated authority are set out at the top of page two of the Directive. We are also enclosing the portion of the United States Attorneys Manual discussing prosecutions involving Section 60501 returns.
If we can be of any further assistance, do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
W. Lee Rawls
Assistant Attorney General