Is this laundering money? Arnie is a registered entrepreneur who sells raw wood. He was contacted by Bob. Bob works in a state organization (not private), and was tasked with building several garages on one of the streets of a city. Bob was given a budget, and needs to buy materials for the construction. In this example it's metallic parts (carcass, armatures, or whatever). So Bob contacted Arnie, and here is what they do: Bob transfers a part of the money from the governmental bank account to Arnie's official account, as if he is purchasing metal from Arnie. Arnie withdraws this money from an ATM, and gives almost all of it to Bob. Bob gives some &quot;tip&quot; to Arnie Bob buys metal and other resources from wherever Bob wants, not from Arnie. The governmental money is now cash, therefore it's not tracked anymore. Now Bob can spend this money any way he wants. Bob DOES NOT get anything from Arnie - neither wood nor metal. Arnie just withdraws the money, takes a tip and returns the balance to Bob. It seems that Bob is actually keeping the part of the budget for himself and then buying cheap low-quality materials (or even steals them from somewhere else), employing cheap illegal workers, and saving a lot of money on this construction into his pocket. My country, as far as I know, doesn't care whether the materials were purchased from an entrepreneur who actually sells them (Arnie doesn't sell metal). So according to papers, Arnie sold some metal to Bob, but in reality, Arnie just gave the money back to Bob, in cash after taking a &quot;tip&quot;. This makes a backdoor for manipulations like this one. So it seems to me that Arnie basically launders stolen money. Is this true? And if it is, what would be the legal consequences of someone unconnected to the transaction who knows about it reporting or not reporting it? For example, does not reporting it give rise to a risk of civil or criminal liability? ETA: the country is Ukraine.
united-states Under U.S. law in almost every U.S. jurisdiction this would be illegal conduct. Arnie would be a co-conspirator with Bob in money laundering and in embezzlement of government funds. These would usually be criminal felonies. The government (or a private whistleblower called a &quot;relator&quot; in what is called a &quot;qui tam&quot; action, conducted in a procedurally proper way which afford the government an opportunity to sue itself before bringing the private qui tam action) could also sue Arnie and Bob and hold them liable, jointly and severally, for the funds diverted to Arnie and Bob in this scheme, and probably for punitive damages and/or civil penalties as well. If the role played by Arnie was instead played by a U.S. publicly traded multinational company doing business in another country (or by an official of such a company who has knowledge of or is involved in the transaction with Bob), and it was also illegal to do this in that country (whether or not that law was enforced in that country), then the U.S. multinational company involved would also have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). As noted at the link: The FCPA is jointly enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which apply criminal and civil penalties respectively. So, in that case, it would be a violation of both U.S. and the other country's laws, in all likelihood giving rise to liability to both criminal and civil consequences in both countries. It isn't patently obvious that this conduct would be illegal under the law of every country, although it seems likely. For example, a sheriff operating a prison in Alabama can do something very similar (skim money off prison operation funds by obtaining low bids for prison service contracts) legally. Similarly, if Arnie had actually gone out and purchased metal parts from a third party at Bob's direction and then delivered those metal parts to Bob's government employer, that would be entirely legal almost everywhere (although any kickback to Bob, if that was what was really happening would still probably be some form of embezzlement in which Arnie might be conspiring). Also, while this is considered corrupt in most of the developed world, in many developing and undeveloped countries, civil servants are paid almost nothing and kick backs for supervising government contracts are tolerated at a minimum as a matter of unstated official policy by senior managers of the government entities that unofficially sanction or encourage this conduct by their subordinates. This reality is one of the main reasons that the U.S. FCPA is heavily criticized politically and in academic commentary. what would be the legal consequences of someone unconnected to the transaction who knows about it reporting or not reporting it? For example, does not reporting it give rise to a risk of civil or criminal liability? Normally, someone not involved in Arnie's company, like a family member of Arnie, would have no legal duty to report this conduct upon learning of it, and would face no legal consequences for failing to report it, if the person not reporting it wasn't actually involved in the scheme. Someone who cared about Arnie might want to counsel him that he is engaged in very risky conduct that could have catastrophic consequences if discovered and prosecuted. They might advise him that while this scheme does generate funds for Arnie that might not be worth the risk. Ultimately, as a practical matter, if that person didn't want to harm Arnie, however, that person would have to let Arnie decide for himself what to do. If subpoenaed to serve as a witness, someone who knew about Arnie and Bob's conduct (other possibly than Arnie's spouse and his lawyer if his lawyer learned about the conduct only after the fact), could be compelled to testify in a court of law against Arnie about what the person who knew about this scheme knew, possibly contributing to Arnie going to prison and facing monetary penalties.
It may be illegal under product labelling regulations that apply to that kind of product (or under a general deceptive trade practices act), but even then, only if you are interpreting the numbers, whose meaning is not clearly spelled out, correctly. But, to be actionable as fraud it must, among other things, be a misrepresentation as to a material fact (which if the goods, such as cordless drills, are not perishable it probably isn't) and the recipient of the misrepresentation must have justifiably relied upon the misrepresentation (which is necessary not true in the case of a representation that it was made in December 2018 on a product sold no later than July of 2018). It is also not entirely clear that this is a "made on" date. It could refer, for example, to the the twelfth batch or lot or shipment of products made in 2018, and not to the month of December, or it could refer to a product made in 2018 at factory number 12. @NateEldredge in the comments also makes the plausible observation that it could be a week number which is a common system in manufacturing which would put it in a more reasonable March 2018 time frame. You probably shouldn't do anything, because you haven't been harmed by this cryptic string of numbers embossed on the product, and even if you were, your damages would not be worth the time or money involved to pursue it as anything other than part of a class action lawsuit.
Suppose you want to pay for your son's college tuition with cocaine sales proceeds. You hire your son as an actor in your miserable movie and pay him $90,000 for doing so. The movie is produced by a corporation that you don't have to 1099 when you give it money. The corporation treats the money in as a loan which isn't income to it and doesn't have to report the lender to anyone. The son has the money (after paying income tax on it) and can pay for college for the year. The movie company and son don't appear to be doing anything other than being incompetent movie producers and lousy overpaid actors unless you know the big picture. The money has effectively been spent in a way that conceals its illegal origins and makes it look legitimate. Ergo, money laundering.
In the worst case if they shut shop, then how might I go about getting my money back? It is unlikely that you can. A SAFE is not a loan (and for that matter isn't even a share in the company) and doesn't create an enforceable contractual right to get your money back. If you make an equity investment and the company loses money and goes out of business, you lose everything you invested. If the promoter made false representations that induced you to invest, or actively concealed material facts about the investment, you might be able to sue the promoter for securities fraud under federal regulation 10b-5, or under a state securities law, or under a common law fraud theory. You could also sue to issuer of the investment (i.e. the company) but that would usually be futile because the company is broke and hence judgment proof. State or federal securities regulators or a local district attorney or state attorney-general might pursue the case in lieu of a private civil action by you, but getting them to take action is often quite difficult. But, if your investment wasn't induced by fraud and instead the management of the company simply made bad decisions that caused the company to fail, you have no remedy. The investment was for a SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity). I have the signed SAFE with me. This is a very unusual way for a QoZ to be structured, which adds to the sense that this may have been a shady venture.
Who Owns The Bunker? Your relative obviously owns the cellar up to their land property boundary. The people who own the other land would have originally been the owners of that portion of the bunker, assuming that it was not permissive (if it was permissive, an easement by estoppel probably would have arisen). So, then the question is, whether the people in the chain of title to the relative acquired ownership of that portion of the bunker by adverse possession. Normally, adverse possession is acquired when someone occupies land under a claim of right that is open, notorious and hostile. While the use of the bunker would be "hostile" in this case (because the other property owners didn't have access to the bunker), it is not at all clear that it was "open and notorious". Indeed, apparently, the other land owners weren't aware that it existed. So, there would probably not be "squatter's rights" in this situation. Also, adverse possession can't run against the sovereign, so to the extent that the bunker goes under public land (e.g. a public street), that also can't be adversely possessed and that portion of the bunker remains the property of the sovereign land owner. @PaulJohnson in a comment to another post notes that: It sounds like your relative has one of the secret bunkers built for the "Auxiliary Units" who were to wage guerilla war from behind the lines after a successful German invasion. bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-37947840/… If this were the case, and the government authorized its construction, there would probably be an implied easement that would allow the bunker to be the property of the person owning the entry to it, rather than the other property owners. But, as you note, proving that case would be difficult. It might be possible to scour declassified civil defense records from the WWII era to determine if this was the case, but you might need to employ an archivists or historian to get to the bottom of this question. What if they sell it? Suppose that they do sell it. What happens? Since title is certificated in Britain, there would be no title insurance company to compensate the buyer if someone later claimed to own the property. Your relative would have a warranty of title inherent in the deed to the portion of the property that is legally described in the deed (unless the property were sold by a quitclaim deed specifically disavowing any promise that what was sold was owned by the seller), but that warranty would probably not include the portions of the bunker outside the boundaries of their lot because that is not included in the legal description of the property on the property certificate or the deed. So, if it was sold, the buyer might not have any claim against the seller if the buyer did not get good title to the entire bunker, and would have no one to sue at all, if your relatives died before litigation over ownership of the bunker arose. The buyer might sue your relatives for common law fraud if the bunker were described in the marketing materials for the sale, but if they were told that some of the bunker went outside the lot and that its legal status was unknown, or if the property was sold by a quitclaim deed, that suit would probably not be successful. Other Options Depending upon whether the owner is on good terms with his neighbors, the owner could probably buy the subsurface rights or some sort of easement to that property from the neighbors under whose land it runs, and might even be able to purchase such rights from the local council where it runs under a street. Negotiating the price would be tricky. On one hand, it doesn't hurt the other owners at all. On the other hand, they have the power to deprive your relatives of all use of the property. Often deals like this are done for nominal consideration between people on good terms with each other, but for extortionate prices when people are not on good terms with each other.
When does it become illegal to exchange bitcoin for cash? When the transaction purposefully skips the controls in place regarding anti-money laundering. Generally speaking, the issue is not the mere involvement of cryptocurrency in a transaction, but the crimes a wrongdoer seeks to camouflage or conceal by means of cryptocurrencies. Such crimes typically involve money laundering, identity theft, stolen card numbers, and the like. As quoted in one of the links you provide, "[t]he use of bitcoins in the transactions is a new technological flourish to this very old crime". Is there any direct source or any laws with numbers? Apropos of your first link, mentioning that "a Florida judge threw out money transmitting charges against a bitcoiner" (see also here), I will point out that the court's dismissal of charges against that defendant has been reversed early this year. See State v. Espinoza, 264 So.3d 1055 (2019). Although the judges' narratives of a case are questionable and/or sloppy and to be taken with a grain of salt, the appellate decision cites language from Florida legislation as applicable to virtual currencies (and, impliedly, cryptocurrencies). You will notice that the focus in the Espinoza decision is the interpretation of Florida Statutes in its sections 560.125(1) and (5)(a) (regarding unauthorized vendors), and 560.103(21), (29) (defining monetary value as "a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in currency"). As usual, each legislation may present subtle and/or fundamental variations. For instance, the court in Espinoza at 1065 identified that federal law is inapplicable there in that 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A) contemplates that "the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means" (emphasis added), and Espinoza's transaction(s) did not involve a third party. By contrast, the Florida statute does not allude to third parties in that transmission of monetary value, hence preventing the statutory sanctions from being preemptively foreclosed in the matter of Espinoza. What about when someone buys with stolen money or money from illegal proceeds. Did you commit a crime if you sell bitcoin to someone and the money is stolen, or the gift cards are stolen? That also depends on the jurisdiction and the facts of the case. In Espinoza, he was allegedly informed that the cash he received (or was about to receive) in exchange for bitcoins "derived from engaging in illegal activity and that [the buyer] was planning to use the bitcoins to engage in further illegal activity", Espinoza at 1058. The court highlighted the State's argument that "dismiss[ing] a charge of money laundering is improper because money laundering requires intent" (emphasis added), which is sanctioned by section 896/101(3)(c).
It would be a violation of 18 USC 1001, which is the law against making false statements to the federal government. Paul Mozer, who was a Salomon Brothers trader, received a four month sentence for doing something along those lines in 1994. Bidding on something implies an intent to pay for the thing, which in this case is a falsehood: in so doing, one "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact" (that you don't intend to pay for the thing).
There is no money being offered or given to the voter. There is a long-running traditional bipartisan expenditure in Pennsylvania known variously as street money and get out the vote money that is legally used to reimburse volunteers for expenses to drive voters to the polls. The second article linked asserts this is a first amendment protected right. This seems in line with such historical expenditures.