New York governor Eliot Spitzer was busted visiting a high-priced call girl.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

He was caught by a FEDERAL wiretap.  What are the feds doing working vice?  Don't they have better things to do?

So much for the idea that LE goes for the low-hanging fruit.

The feds weren't working vice.  They were investigating Spitzer following reported "suspicious banking activities."

Lots of large cash jockeying = potential complaints.

A complaint = an investigation.

Please note:  Spitzer essentially got the agency busted with his indiscreet cash maneuvers, not the other way around.  I can't believe how many on the GD board are blaming the agency for this!

When you start talking about millions in unreported income the feds get real interested real fast. Not to mention the fact that Spitzer undoubtedly had made many enemies as AG of NY most notably the high powered, ultra wealthy ones on Wall Street.

They had already attracted their own attention, but I agree, he did more to get them busted then the other way around.

Your all sound like he knowingly did this common He choose to make the call but more to the point how long was he in there pocket was he a hired gun to take out the compation mmmmm seen that before

what exactly are you trying to say? I don't mean to criticize, but your post is unintelligible.

What is "compation"? Are trying to say he was a hired gun, hired to take out the competition? Even written in proper english, the statement is absurd.

Thanks, Man of Georgia, that last post was incredibly incoherent.  I hate to be picky, but come on, we should at least understand the language the poster is using!

I read in the Chicago Tribune "Spitzer probably won't be prosecuted for prostitution, but he could be charged with illegally concealing the purpose of the money he spent on prostitutes, a crime called structuring".  What does this mean?  Can any hobbyiest be charged with "structuring".  Since this bust was successful in finding money laundering, why would they stop here?  Seems all escort service would be guilty of the same crime.  I have to believe most of the income to escorts goes un-reported.  Same with strip clubs.  And how and why would this crime trickle back to the customer who has no knowledge of how the money is handled?  Also, what about the assumption that agencies rid themselves of all client info after the business is ended?  I read they have info on all clients during that time period, not just Spitzer.

it was the wire transfers that first attracted attention. His Bank, like most banks, has software that flags suspicious wire transfers, then those are automatically reported.  Given his family wealth, no person at the bank would voluntarily risk losing a big customer over something like this.  Once flagges by the software, someone at the IRS ran down the recipients, determined they were associated with an excort agency, hence an investigative unit was called in.  He was snowballed from there on out.

but I'll try to answer your questions.

Based on what I've read, structuring is a shell game with money trying to hide the fact that it's use is for illegal purposes.  Most places I've seen this mention note that it is a fairly archaic law.  Essentially, they're trying to get Spitzer for something... even if they have to pull out obsolete laws to make it all stick.  Unless YOU are a governor who has made enemies and done many funny financial transactions that raised the banks eyebrows, I doubt you will ever need to be concerned with this one.

"Since this bust was successful in finding money laundering"
Was it?  I haven't read that anywhere, however I admit to getting bored with the details of it all rather quickly.

"Seems all escort service would be guilty of the same crime.  I have to believe most of the income to escorts goes un-reported."
Many agencies and ladies actually treat this as a profession and run small businesses, pay our taxes, and mind our p's and q's.  You are right though, I doubt this is the majority of us out here...

"And how and why would this crime trickle back to the customer who has no knowledge of how the money is handled? "
It wouldn't.  In this case it is Spitzers financial transactions that led to the investigation of the agency.  There was no trickle back to the customer.

As to assuming agencies rid themselves of all client info... it is in your best interest to believe that anything you give out is kept, the very LEAST someone will usualy do is keep notes of you in  codes such as "client number 9."  Really  now, ladies need a way to remember friends so that they can be welcomed back or given references when requested.

You have good questions in there, sorry I don't have the info to answer them all...