txrus

Airline employees charged in cash-smuggling sting:

http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...0276#scpshrjmd

Not an atty but how is this 'defrauding the TSA'?

chollie

Misuse of work time?

I still don't understand why there should be a problem taking any amount of cash through a checkpoint. I know TSA will question it on the pretext that the passenger has to notify CBP if taking >$10K out of the country. But if someone is on a domestic itinerary, as far as the checkpoint is concerned, $ is just another form of paper. Screen it the same way you would a huge pile of play money (no 'artfully concealed' razor blades) and let it go.

Clearly, TSA still actively looks for and challenges sizable amounts of cash at the checkpoint. If LEs are summoned, I wonder what it takes to be allowed to pass? Documentation establishing ownership of the $$? Even then, since when do the police have the authority to challenge a citizen solely because he/she is walking around with >$10K on his/her person?

Interesting item in TSA's official response: TSA randomly inspects airport and airline workers as they enter or work within the secure area.

Really? What do you screen a restaurant worker or lounge employee for? Do they do residue tests? Gropes?

Does this ever really happen?

txrus

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...muggling_sting

I get the money laundering part but still don't get how TSA fits in-looks to me like the US Atty is giving the TSA way more authority than they actually have.

petaluma1

[QUOTE]The Transportation Security Administration screeners then found that the two men were carrying above the $10,000 maximum in US currency. Alkhanshli had $12,000 and Ali had $14,000, sources said.

Both were then questioned by US Customs and Border Protection personnel, causing them to miss their flight, sources said.

The men were able to explain why they had the money, and the feds then cleared them to catch another flight, sources said.[QUOTE]


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/28...-mans-luggage/

(I am unable to open the OP's link.)

Firebug4

This is clearly a guess since I can't get the link to open but I would suspect the defrauding TSA would be alleged lies or misrepresentations made on the SIDA application. Such as statements on the application that you will not use access the SIDA badge grants for illegal purposes. It is really just an extra charge that is being thrown on if I had to guess.

I would be interested to see what the actual statute that was used to charge them.

FB

FlyingHoustonian

I Concur. It seems from various articles and reports it is how they used their SIDAs to bypass the main channels of entry to the sterile area.
edit: I mean just in relation to the TSA charges, not the rest.

Dieuwer

Entrapment?

Firebug4

There is not enough information to even begin to speculate concerning the topic of entrapment. There is much more to entrapment then the government merely soliciting someone to do a criminal act.

FB

ronin308

While the TSA sets the requirements for issuance of a SIDA badge, the actual process of issuing the badge is done by the airport. The badge is the property of the airport and the airport is responsible for the administrative procedures if the badge is misused.
This is a link to Seatac's "rules"
http://www.portseattle.org/Employee-...tyhandbook.pdf

I think the original wire article that was copied for the many stories was poorly written as the TSA isn't being "defrauded" which is defined as illegally obtaining money from someone by deception. Since they didn’t get the money from the TSA they didn’t defraud them. At the worst they and the companies they work for could incur civil penalties from the TSA and other punitive action from the airport.

The money laundering charge is the one carrying the heavy penalties. I'm not a lawyer but this link details the US Civil code related to money laundering.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956

It looks like they can be charged under section 3.

The problem I have is that this was done as a sting by the DHS which doesn't have jurisdiction over drug cases or money laundering. While they did make the argument that it's a violation of security, it really isn't as they have no proof of weapons or destructive devices being smuggled past the checkpoint nor can the prove that the defendants would have knowingly smuggled those types of items.

The worst thing here was the use of an "informant" who is a convicted felon and now will be getting "improved immigration status", meaning he's going to be free in the US while these guys are going to be jailed, possibly for 20 years.

jphripjah

Here is the charging affidavit detailing the specific facts of the alleged criminal activity:

http://freepdfhosting.com/7eb2357fe4.pdf

GUWonder

A DHS entrapment operation where the "cooperating witness" heading the DHS-led conspiracy is a felon facing potential deportation/removal who happens to be seeking favorable immigration status adjustment and/or other governmental waiver/favor?

If I were on the jury on a trial for such a case, the government would be anything but guaranteed to get a guilty verdict vote from me.

The government in this case seems to consider an unauthorized use of airside access privilege to be defrauding the government even when no money or material is being deprived of the government.

jphripjah

The fraud on the government charge does seem a bit weird. The money laundering charge looks a lot stronger.

GUWonder

Access fraud is something the government can use for even things like unauthorized computer access -- material damage need not take place as a result of unauthorized access for access fraud charges to be brought down on individuals or groups of individuals.

Firebug4

DHS does have jurisdiction over drug cases and money laundering cases. This is because Homeland Security Investigations is under DHS. It is Homeland Security Investigations that participated in this enforcement action. DHS actually does very little enforcement. It is the agency that are in the DHS department that do the enforcement.

FB

Firebug4

The situation you described above would not met the legal elements of an entrapment defense. There are two elements that need to be met. Just offering a person the opportunity to do a criminal act is not Entrapment.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...9/crm00645.htm


645

Entrapment—Elements

Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").

Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.

FB