« Cooked books | Main | Legalization of prostitution »
Very good sentences
The integrity of our criminal justice system rests on the notion that we investigate crimes, not people.
Here is more, via MR reader Malcolm. Was it Beria who said: "You show me the man, I'll find you the crime"?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 13, 2008 at 09:59 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
The article lost me after the advertisement break. Why should we rule out bribes simply because he's wealthy? That assumption is about as valid as saying, "A married man wouldn't use a $5k hooker. He can get it at home."
Posted by: newton at Mar 13, 2008 10:36:15 AM
It was Beria.
Posted by: zeusmccracken at Mar 13, 2008 11:32:49 AM
Why should we rule out bribes simply because he's wealthy?
OK, but certainly we should rule them out when he's paying, not collecting.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Mar 13, 2008 11:37:45 AM
A wealthy public official might manipulate funds in order to bribe other public officials.
Posted by: at Mar 13, 2008 11:44:44 AM
The author of this article is seriously misinformed abount banking regulations, if he thinks that leaving Spitzer's name off was 'probably a legitimate trigger' for a SAR. Anything like that -- or just sending the series of wire transfers of less than 10K, without any other suspicious behavior -- leads to a mandatory SAR from the bank, and if the bank isn't diligent about sending SAR's, a prosecutor like Spitzer will be quick to nail the bank for it.
Posted by: DK at Mar 13, 2008 11:56:37 AM
A wealthy public official might manipulate funds in order to bribe other public officials.
Or for any one of a million legal reasons. Some might be unsavory - suppose he made secret trips to Las Vegas to gamble, or elsewhere in Nevada to visit prostitutes for that matter - but legal. Absent other evidence of wrongdoing, should moving money around be grounds for criminal investigation?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Mar 13, 2008 12:18:38 PM
DK - I don't get it. You think it is "seriously misinformed" to say that leaving the name off is probably a legitimate trigger for a SAR, and then you say that it triggers a mandatory SAR. Which means it is a legitimate trigger for a SAR. You seem to be agreeing, not disagreeing.
Posted by: Constant at Mar 13, 2008 12:44:25 PM
Given that Beria has been brought up tangentially in relation to Spitzer,
it was not just men, but he was notorious for having his goons pick up
beautiful young women off the streets for his reportedly sadistic pleasure.
And, unlike Spitzer, he did not bother to pay them, certainly not at the
rates that Spitzer has been reported to have been paying.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 13, 2008 12:57:51 PM
There's an op ed by Dershowitz in the Wall St Journal today that is quite relevant to this discussion. He even quotes Beria. He's also kind of questioning the prosecutorial motives and decisions in the case but focused on overly broad federal criminal laws.
Posted by: Dan at Mar 13, 2008 1:49:01 PM
Isn't this exactly how Spitzer operated when he was AG? That little irony seems to be lost on
the author.
Posted by: Kinnerton at Mar 13, 2008 2:05:44 PM
DK is correct. If you've worked at any financial institution over the past decade, you've been required to be trained on Anti Money Laundering requirements. Persistent transfers below threshold and incomplete wire information both would trigger a SAR.
Posted by: JasonL at Mar 13, 2008 2:26:32 PM
When I worked as a bank teller, there were certain types of transactions that I was to immediately report to my supervisors so that they could notify the government. My understanding was the IRS, DEA, or any other number of departments would investigate. In other words, even if Mark Spitzer was not a Democratic Governor, this would have been investigated. Anyone else's name attached to similar transactions would have been investigated as well. After reading the comments here and on the TNR blog, it seems other people (probably more knowledgable than me) are saying the same thing. I don't see anything done wrong.
On the other hand, if the government had said, "Whoah, we can't investigate this, it's a high profile government official," then Justice would have been betraying its duty. Spitzer is not accused of some sort of innocent mistake that is being exploited, or some long ago action. It's about an immediate crime.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at Mar 13, 2008 2:30:09 PM
First it was sexual harassment law that didn't apply to Democrats.
Now it's antimoneylaundering laws.
What's next? We'll have to wait and see which laws I have to follow that elected Dems don't have to.
Posted by: Thomas at Mar 13, 2008 2:40:23 PM
A pretty good description of the laws and investigation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyreg ... ei=5087%0A
Spitzer of all people should have known better. Of course, behaving suspiciously isn't a crime. No.. Wait.. Yes it is. With respect to Spitzer, it's called Karma.
Posted by: Bill at Mar 13, 2008 3:01:29 PM
There's always Willie Stark, from Robert Penn Warren's "All The King's Men". He's asked his factotum to go get some dirt on a judge that's causing him some trouble, and is told that there may not be any dirt to be found. His reply:
"Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption, and he passes from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something."
That applies to Spitzer's methods, and (most certainly) to Spitzer.
Posted by: Derek Lowe at Mar 13, 2008 4:05:21 PM
I'm not sure I agree; I don't think it really matters whether you investigate the crime or the man if you determine the truth and that in truth, the law was violated. If this opens the door to too many witchhunts or overzealous prosecutions, perhaps we simply have too many empty laws on the books.
Posted by: Wilson at Mar 14, 2008 10:17:28 AM
