involving past House Speaker Hasert.
The topic of how to deal with blackmail comes up here every once in a while. As it says at the end of the article, it's an art, not a science.
What isn't mentioned in the article is why Hasert felt it necessary to say anything to the FBI at all. Apparently he is not familiar with the Fifth Amendment which allows one to STFU. That's one for us guys and gals to remember.
There is no law that I know of that stops one from just giving their money to another person, except of course there is a tax law about gift taxes that the payer (not the payee) must make. That may be the fulcrum of the issue, but why isn't it mentioned?
I suspect we have not heard the last about this and Mr. Hasert is going to learn something about Chinese water torture.
still not a lawyer
There have been whispers that perhaps he was a little too "hands on" as a wrestling coach.
He lied about where the money was going. He told the FBI he didn't trust the banking system so he was going to keep cash at home. Following that meeting he changed how he withdrew money to keep it under the 10K daily limit. That is red flag that has ensnared a lot of people.
He could have STFU but that would have ruined, not that it matters now, his lobbying business
he LA Times is reporting that one of Hastert's former students was blackmailing him.
"On Friday, federal law enforcement officials said Hastert had paid $1.7 million over the last four years to conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill., where Hastert worked until 1981".
I'm sorry that young man was molested, and Hastert will now have to answer for it. But at some point, the victim turned into a vicious blackmailer, extorting $1.7 million. Both Hastert & his blackmailer need to go to prison now. --z
Hastert needs to be sent to an institution. This is why the insanity defense was created.
still not one of those you know whats.
This kind of reminds me of the difference between a prostitute and a sugar baby. They are both exchanging sex for money it's the order of things that make the difference.
Version one. Former student approaches Hastert and says, "you know you sucked my dick when I was a sophomore at Yorkville high. I want money or I'm going to the media." Blackmail.
Version two. Former student approaches Hastert and says, "I remember when you sucked my dick sophomore year at Yorkville high. I kind of liked it. Life has thrown me some curve balls over the years. Do you know of anyone who can help me out? Hastert senses danger and offers to help. Not blackmail.
So this is clearly "extortion induced by threats". A few factors which may be protecting the blackmailer:
1. Hastert initially denied to federal prosecutors that he was being blackmailed. His alibi for numerous cash withdrawals was that he "didn't trust the banking system."
2. It sounds like the blackmailer is cooperating with federal investigators.
I tell you, trying to pick sides here is a loser's choice. You've got a sexual predator vs a former victim who's now an insidious extortionist. I repeat again: both Hastert and his blackmailer should go to prison. --
and I also have trouble holding down a job because of my depression and anxiety. You morally owe it to me to help me pay for professional help and to keep a roof over my head while I seek to recover. Hastert might conclude that it makes sense to help the victim in order to suppress a scandal regardless of whether criminal charges are even threatened and regardless of whether any statute of limitations might prevent criminal charges. Not clear to me that this scenario would constitute blackmail.
The problem, dani987, is that blackmail is the gift that just keeps on giving. There's no expiration date. Which is why you can never deal with a blackmailer. Everyone in P4P is a potential target for blackmail. One day someone may try to extort you. I hope you're ready for that. --
I am 100% Blackmail proof. No one has any leverage over me because I am not ashamed of anything I have done, and that definitely includes fucking hookers.
I really can't wait until some BSC hooker tries to blackmail me, I will literally LMFAO
but I still haven't done anything that I am ashamed of. So I will remain blackmail proof forever.
Besides any woman half my age would have to know i had a "past" and while I wouldn't be constantly be rubbing her nose in it, I certainly wouldn't be keeping it a secret either.
I don't understand why an educated man who was a congressman would not be wise enough to STFU and hit the lawyer's number on his speed dial.
I don't know what he did, and don't condone it, but he should have looked at the cautionary tale of Martha Stewart. She ultimately went to jail for making false statements and perjury. IF she had shut up, it all would have been good.
Side point - it's interesting that you have the right to remain silent, but not to lie. Yet LE has the option to lie in order to elicit a confession.
Just go through your daily paper and see how many stories there are of people convicted on partly or wholly their own testimony or statements to LE.
It's mind blowing.
With his security clearances he may not be able to tell the FBI to go away.
It's mind blowing.
Lying to LE period will earn you a charge of "obstruction of justice" which in the case of simple solicitation is a more severe crime than the socalled crime itself.
NEVER lie to LE, The best thing you can do is say as little as possible, NOTHING is the preferred amount of discussion, but that is not always possible.
There is no law that I know of that stops one from just giving their money to another person
Cash transactions >= 10,000 have to be reported to the government and if they see that you are routinely doing transactions less than that amount you are assumed to be guilty of trying to skirt the law and they have the authority to seize all of your assets until you are proven innocent (in which case you might get your money back years later).
Based on what I read, Hastert fell afoul of this law. As the former speaker of the House who helps write laws he should probably have known better.
So I don't feel too sorry for him
I can't link it because it is a paywall. In simple terms: Two people can agree that one has harmed the other. To settle the issue a damage amount can be agreed upon and paid. A confidentiality agreement can be signed. All this can be done without involvement of attorneys and the courts and is perfectly legal.
Hasterts attorneys asked and got the justice department to not include the persons name. One can only surmise there is a confidentiality agreement in effect, as most legal settlements have.
Paying hush money is not automatically blackmail. It really depends on the circumstances. If you agree that there is some kind of legal agreement in place, the blackmail ship has sailed. Hastert agreed he harmed the person and compensated him for the damage.
someone you wronged, is the element that the wronged party will do something to harm the other party (E.g. expose the fact in a way that will injure that party.)
But on the other hand, if you hire an attorney to do it properly, such that the "harm" would consist of a lawsuit unless the party makes restitution, then I think that is a legal way to avoid committing blackmail.
I tend to think that this was not done in this case.
The fine line between the two is admittedly murky.
still not a lawyer.
concerning child abuse, which is not prosecutable because of the statute of limitation, I do not think that Hastert is getting a fair shake here.
True, he is a nitwit for lying, and even for structuring the withdrawals, but since the real underlying crime is the child abuse, which again is unproven and un-prosecutable, I see this as a no harm, no foul situation and therefore should not be pursued.
It's not unlike the laws concerning conspiracy, which is a serious felony. If the law you conspired to break was jay-walking, then you still get popped for the felony. LE uses this to extract confessions and plea deals where otherwise they would never have been able to prove a case. I say that situation stinks.
Just 2 cents from someone who's still not a lawyer.
in which an injured party accepts compensation privately. All depends if the compensation is proportionate to the injury. We don't know the specifics of Hastert's victim. Maybe the molestation was particularly heinous and resulted in psychological injuries that destroyed the victim's ability to support himself or live normally. Pure speculation on my part, and not trying to justify any actual blackmail that may be involved. Hastert's motivation might have been to suppress exposure but victim's motivation might have been to be made whole. Bullshit? Maybe, but we don't know the facts.
Your scenario has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. It has everything to do with an implied threat coupled with an extortion demand. In your little drama, only you benefit. And who cares about anyone else, as long as you get paid. You posted that there's "nothing inherently unethical about the scenario". Your scenario reeks of greed and larceny; it's unethical at it's rotten core. Sorry. --
and will remain so as far as the law is concerned on account of the statute of limitations.
I know that it gnaws at us to let such horrendous crimes go unpunished, but I would not want to dismantle the checks and balances in the Bill of Rights to go after one criminal, no matter how heinous their deed was.
Hastert will now be judged in the court of public opinion, which is the only court that can now touch him.
As for the other charges involving the money structuring and the dishonesty to the FBI, I would not pursue them if I had my druthers as they are pointless unless there was an underlying case to be prosecuted.
There's something quite flagrant about the criminality in the Hastert case. And once you start peeling this rotten onion, it only gets worse. It's not surprising that the FBI and the IRS took an interest in this case. Justice can still be served by prosecuting a criminal for a different crime than his most heinous offense. The murderous Al Capone was finally imprisoned for tax evasion.
He would at a minimum owe the gift tax on the money he gave the blackmailer.
Oddly that charge hasn't been mentioned, at least not yet.
I'm concerned about the structuring charge. I will grant that a person who does structuring to avoid detection of a another crime should face charges for both; but when the structuring was not in support of some other crime (Being blackmailed is not a crime as far as I know.) then to use it to punish a person strikes me as unconstitutional and an abuse of prosecuting powers.
The comparison with Al Capone is not justified. Capone was widely known to have committed many crimes but issues (Mostly corruption within the government*, if the truth be known.) prevented successful prosecution. Also tax evasion is in and of itself is a crime that causes all of us to become victims as we must shoulder a higher tax burden on account of same. Structuring withdrawals from your own bank account does not produce in and of itself any victims. It's only practical use is to assist the government in determining if a crime is occurring. Ironically, the government seems to have no problems in determining when people withdraw this or that sum of money, so it prompts the question: Why have such a law at all? I'd toss it if I had my druthers on that.
still not a lawyer
*On the day that the Valentine's Day Massacre occurred Al Capone was playing poker with the Mayor and Chief of Police of Chicago.
Oddly that charge hasn't been mentioned, at least not yet.
First, donative intent is required for something to be a gift. In other words, you're doing it from a good place, with no expectation of return, or for any economic reason. If your ATF comes over one night out of the blue and gives you the BJ of your life, smiles and leaves, that's donative intent - she was being nice and giving you a gift. On the other hand, if, before leaving, she asks you to 'loan' her $50, there's no donative intent - she gave you the BJ as a pretext to asking for money. Here, Hastert gave the money to keep the blackmailer quiet - i.e., for a reason - so there's no donative intent, and therefore no gift.
Second, gift TAX is only assessed if you've exceeded your lifetime unified credit, which is currently $2.117 million (or, in gross dollars, $5.43 million). Until that happens, no gift tax is incurred. When you die, your estate value is combined with all of your gifts given over your lifetime (for which a gift return was filed) to calculate your total taxable estate. At that time, you might have an estate tax issue, if you haven't planned well. At worst, the only thing Hastert could be accused of was failing to file a gift tax return, which is a minor, civil, penalty, not a criminal penalty
Are you high? Let's see you run that by an IRS auditor. Explain that you're giving something "from a good place ", like after your favorite hooker gives you a blow job.
You're just a fountain of bad information. From IRS.GOV:
"If you are a citizen or resident of the United States, you must file a gift tax return (whether or not any tax is ultimately due) in the following situations: If you gave gifts to someone in 2014 totaling more than $14,000 (other than to your spouse)"
You shouldn't be giving tax advice to anyone. Ever. --
You want to see me run my definition of gift by an IRS auditor? No problem. As I said, "[f]irst, donative intent is required for something to be a gift. In other words, you're doing it from a good place, with no expectation of return, or for any economic reason."
Here's what the IRS says: "You make a gift if you give property (including money), or the use of or income from property, without expecting to receive something of at least equal value in return."
So.....it's the exact same definition.
Your example ("after your favorite hooker gives you a blow job") is NOT a gift, because you would have given money for the blow job. In my example, there was no money exchanged, she just gave you a blow job to be nice. THAT is a gift.
You're just a fountain of bad information. From IRS.GOV:
"If you are a citizen or resident of the United States, you must file a gift tax return (whether or not any tax is ultimately due) in the following situations: If you gave gifts to someone in 2014 totaling more than $14,000 (other than to your spouse)"
You shouldn't be giving tax advice to anyone. Ever. --z
in which case the donee must pay taxes. As for the unified credit, as you say it must be reported, but I'm surprised that it is treated so cavalierly as you suggest, but...
still not a lawyer (or accountant)
Recipient, not donee.
Yes, since the payment was in exchange for not revealing the acts, it is taxable income. Even better, it's potentially income from self-employment, which subjects it to SE tax as well as ordinary income tax.
Hastert could also be fined for failing to file a 1099-MISC since the payment exceeded $600.
The gift tax return asks if you've filed prior gift returns, and the IRS has pretty good records on whether you have or haven't.
The victim may have simply approach Hassert and TD him he had a damage claim and that unless a satisfCtory damages settlement was reached the victim would be compelled to file a civil suit. Hassert then agreed to pay, but imposed a confidentiality agreement as part of the deal. Standard legal procedure. As lawyer for a specific client you have no duty to worry about others or expose past wrongdoing. The victim and his lawyer simply may have followed standard legal practice. That is not blackmail. It is, however, unethical to threaten to bring criminal action to gain a civil advantage - but that's not necessary since the perp always knows that could result.
Does anyone remember "I did not have sex with that woman"??? I can see that same man twenty years later claiming "it's not blackmail" when it's pretty obvious to everyone that's exactly what it was.
From the NY Times: "Paul Caron, a tax law professor at Pepperdine University, noted that the person who was paid money by Mr. Hastert may have owed income tax on the payments, whether they constituted a settlement, extortion or something else. Yes, even proceeds from extortion are taxable income; there was a Supreme Court case about the matter in 1952."
I smiled when I read the passage above. The extortionist was given 1.7 million since 2010. All of that is taxable income. If he didn't report that income, then he's looking down the barrel of the IRS. That's a lot of income over five years. I wonder if he included it on his tax returns, lol. I hope not. He needs to go to jail. --z
And that they end up in the same cell
Now THAT would be justice
There has been no proof of extortion offered in this case. Some opinions but no charges have been filed. The fact that Hastert asked that the person not be named comes down on the non extortion side. His reputation is destroyed now. Why wouldn't he be crying "extortion" to any who would listen? He hasn't yet.
May is the critical word in the story. In most cases damages paid for physical injuries or sickness are not taxable. None of us have any idea how the settlement was structured.
"Hastert served as a wrestling coach and teacher in Yorkville, Ill. from 1965 to 1981. At that time, a lawsuit alleging sexual abuse of a minor had to be filed within two years, according to Cardozo School of Law professor Marci Hamilton. “If a victim of abuse was 16 at the time, by 19 he would have had no options left,” Hamilton said.
Do you think Hastert, former Speaker of the House, was unaware of the statute of limitations in his home state. So much for your scenario of a legal "settlement" for damages.
There's a small chance you may be right--the race isn't over yet. But I'm betting on "American Pharaoh" and your money is on "My Pretty Pony". You see, Tornacl, the probabilities here are not in your favor. Let's see how it goes. --