How Spitzer Was Caught:
Of all the ironic aspects of the Elliot Spitzer scandal, I think the most remarkable is how he got caught. Based on stories like this and this, it looks like Spitzer got caught because the prostitutes he hired were so expensive that he needed to shuffle several thousands of dollars around each time. Spitzer knew that banks report suspicious money transfers to the IRS to combat financial frauds and money laundering, so he tried to structure his money transfers to avoid suspicion. But the banks thought his activity was still suspicious, so they reported him and the IRS opened an investigation under the assumption that Spitzer was trying to launder money he had obtained from bribes. But he wasn't laundering money — he was paying prostitutes. So Elliot Spitzer, aggressive former white collar crime prosecutor, was brought down because he couldn't outsmart banks looking for evidence of white collar crimes.
Yuck!
-dk
I have my White Collar Crime final exam next week. I'm really, really hoping this story gets turned into the hypo. Maybe that's mean, since I really respected Spitzer, but it's eerie how these scandals do have such perfect timing with regard to law school exam season.
I think they'll only find out if you're doing something squirrelly with the financing. If you just write a check, nobody's going to report anything. If you're paying for your legal luxury with bank transfers through the Cayman Islands and Lichtenstein, expect some scrutiny.
Scary.
Altho I've got to wonder why you'd suspect bribery from the target's *expenditures*. Wonder if there might be a possibility that State funds were involved? Or perhaps some question as to where a holder of public office, which doesn't pay extraordinary wages, is getting the funds to pay thousands per tryst?
It's not unlike civil forfeiture in that respect. Just having an entirely arbitrary quantity of cash in one's possession (the amount is whatever some cop says is suspicious) can result in seizure, and you must become a plaintiff and affirmatively prove you didn't obtain the cash from illegal sources.
Faint praise for "structuring" crimes is that at least the defendant must only convince a judge or jury that there is reasonable doubt.
Both should be anathema to any government that claims to value liberty.
That said, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy than Spitzer.
Isn't willfully structuring your transactions to avoid the reporting amount a crime?
Spitzer is going to have a might difficult time arguing he was unaware of this statute. He might be headed to yale soon. Yust kidding.
If the FBI was interested in busting escort services, they could start with craigslist and the back of the Village Voice -- this place had a fully functioning website that was pretty open about the services on offer. If the FBI was looking at financial transactions - wouldn't they more likely end up starting with one of the hundreds of other johns of this place who are not the sitting governor of New York? And if they really started with Spitzer,
This is like Murder on the Orient Express -- the real question is who put the feds on his trail - Joe Bruno? Dick Grasso? Sheldon Silver? Langone? Whitehead? Hank Greenberg? The Seneca Nation of Indians? Mafiosi recently caught up in the recent roundup?
Maybe we'll never know, but I would bet the rent money that this was no accident.
The news articles referenced don't actually say he was suspected of *receiving* bribes.
For instance:
and
Large outgoing transfers to sketchy organizations could be the payment of bribery.
See Sheriff Mike Corona and his boat deal,
That would be meaner if you didn't respect him.
Huffington Post has archived pages of the website (the site itself has been taken down), but Spitz's girlfriend isn't shown.
That he got caught in flagranto delicto with a prostitution ring, however, reflects poorly on his judgment. What was he thinking?
But what really does tick me off is that he has zealously prosecuted prostitution rings, making public statements that harshly condemned them, and now it turns out he himself personally makes use of them. It reminds me of the old days when prosecutors would by day send kids off to prison for five years for smoking pot and then by night light up at home themselves.
Still, any schmuck ought to be able to squander five grand an hour on satisfying his lust without having banks, the IRS and the FBI climbing all over him. I hate banks in general. I hate intrusions on privacy. I hate anti-prostitution laws, indeed, all laws that impose moral views that are not shared by a large proportion of the population. Get off our backs.
Why do I think government shouldn't require banks to report anything they think is structuring?
Same reason I think mandatory reporting of cash transfers is bad policy or law.
Because banks can't read their depositors' minds, shouldn't pretend to, and certainly shouldn't be legally required to pretend to.
Because government performing financial colonoscopies on citizens without any probable cause besides "he moved some money in excess of $10 grand, or we think he might have" is bad policy or law. It makes perfectly ordinary transactions grist for any old Spitzer's (in the law enforcement bureaucracy) crusade.
One might withdraw $9 grand one week to buy a car, then $1 grand the next to buy a camera. One might do that because one hates credit cards, or because the bargains just happened to appear and the perfectly legitimate sellers were not prepared to accept anything but cash. Why should one have to answer to the government for those decisions?
I understand that the 4A is useless in this case (no REP in transactions conducted by a third party) so is there anything that we can do to keep our personal business out of the Feds hands? Are there any banks that will pledge not to report except as absolutely required by law? You can't keep cash, it's subject to seizure. . .
Because of this, there will be a sentence enhancement, as per 31 USC 5324(d)(2), which kicks in whenever you structure your transactions to have the bank fail to file a report while committing another crime. Under these circumstances, violating 31 USC 5324(a)(1) is punishable by up to 10 years 31 USC 5324(d)(2).
And considering how high profile this is, I can't imagine a federal prosecutor not going forward with at least an indictment.
When I blockquoted your sentence and then wrote "really? why?", I meant to ask that with respect to the blockquoted sentence. Sorry if that was unclear.
OTOH its only the pimps that are charged..not the customers..even though they can be hit with such charges
of course there's probably a backroom deal going on right now whereby spritzer resigns in consideration on not being indicted either locally or federally....
It's just Foley/Vitter redux (their hypocrisy turning on legislation rather than prosecution). Unfortunately for my Democratic preferences, this should pretty squelch any advantage the Dems derived from that argument in '06, and presumably would have again to some lesser extent in November.
Sure sounds like all the elements are there, though.
18 U.S.C. 2422 is in fact the Mann Act. And if the allegations are true, the only apparent element in question is whether the government needs to show knowledge of travel in interstate commerce and whether Spitzer had that knowledge.
And given that he has more or less admitted to the act, does he now get to be placed on the sex offender lists?
I gather you aren't a lawyer? To fill you in, federal investigations take time; they usually unfold over months, and the government brings charges when it's ready. The fact that other types of cases might work differently does not create some kind of constitutional violation.
By the elements:
Whoever knowingly
-persuades, induces, entices, or coerces: agreeing to pay money for sexual services in a hotel room in DC is an enticement to travel
-any individual: the prostitute "kristen" whom he arranged to meet
-to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States: he discussed the travel plans and paid for various tickets and fares. I suspect that they may have done this so he would be on the record as knowing about it.
-to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense: this is a pretty classic act of prostitution, a plain exchange of money for sexual services
-shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both
So yeah, he is done, put a fork in him.
according to what you told guest12345..there is still no reason he hasnt been brought in on local prostitution charges.
i think the real reason is that is wouldn't be prudent to have charged him and none of the other customers...especially since these sorts of investigations don't generally target the customers.
Quoting from 12CFR21
Orin, I may be naive but I'm not stupid. All of these transactions are 100% automated and so no human being ever needs to look at these transaction. The lack of any awareness of the transactions should (if I'm reading it right) be an absolute defense against any violation of 12CFR21. The wise bank, therefore, will simply not look and therefore not have any reason to go snitching to the feds.
Since the banks could have left all these transactions well enough alone in the computer but chose not to, my original scorn for their breach of duty remains.
Carrying $4,300 is criminal? As for class, I don't think you much of that if you carry on with prostitutes.
You're also paying for discretion - something that's very important to a governor. Note that it was his bank rather than the escort agency that got him into trouble.
The opinion of the Court in Lawrence unfortunately fails to specify clearly what standard of review the Court was there applying. There is, however, a zone of privacy and personal autonomy regarding sexual conduct among adults in their own home* which may be gleaned from Lawrence, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird. Even under a rational basis standard, Lawrence would seem to indicate that a generalized governmental interest in morality would not suffice to save the statute. Absent morality, what governmental interest is served by criminalizing adult, consensual prostitution behind closed doors?
This line of reasoning has recently gotten some traction in the U.S. Fifth Circuit's Texas dildo shop case, although the Eleventh Circuit ruled to the contrary with regard to Alabama's sex device statute.
As an aside, I have tried to think of any service other than human sexual activity that may be lawfully given away but not lawfully sold. The only services I can think of are voting and organ donation.
______________________
*As a paying guest in a hotel, the Governor would have an expectation of privacy in the room that he occupied.
Spitzer, of course, will not be able to argue that his transactions weren't willfully structured.
Oh, and here's a brief discussion of the Mann Act.
Yes, you are being watched.
Can you cite some cases for that? Your reading of the reg seems nonobvious to me.
How about legal advice? A non-lawyer can give away, but he can't charge for it. I can cut someone's hair for free in California, but if I want to get paid I need to be licensed. Of course you can't get a license to charge for sex so the analogy is somewhat flawed.
political appointments
Really? I don't remember Nixon, but I've been saying for many years that the person Spitzer most reminds me of is Rudy Giuliani. I would never vote for either one of them; they're both bullies, who think nothing of whom they hurt in order to advance their own careers. The notion that other people have rights just doesn't cross their minds.
I don’t see how discretion raises the escort agency’s costs very much. As such I don’t think the high price is justified. Moreover for a $1,000 per hour they should have picked up the room fee and her travel costs. He took on extra risk by making those arrangements himself. I don’t think he was a wise consumer.
So much for Spitzer's vision of progressive politics.
If this offense subjects him to a sex offender registration requirement, then it's plain that the registration requirement has become meaningless.
If it is to serve its purpose--alerting the public to dangerous sex offenders--then the registration requirement has to be limited to people who commit dangerous sexual offenses. Otherwise you overwhelm the registration rolls with, for example, the names of people who solicit prostitutes or of minors who engage in entirely voluntary sex with other minors.
In California those who are convicted of the misdemeanor offense of annoying a minor are required by law to register for the rest of their lives as sex offenders. There is no discretion in this although the offense of annoying a minor might involve conduct that by no stretch of the imagination can be said to constitute a dangerous sex offense or even a nondangerous sex offense.
In some states minors who engage in entirely voluntary sex with other minors are subjected to lifetime sex offender registration.
In some areas, touching a female lap dancer is a criminal offense even if the dancer agrees to the touching. Are you going to put the guy who touched a dancer on her legs or her buttocks or breasts on the sex offender list for the rest of his life? Ridiculous.
How does one know who to watch out for if every Tom, Dick and Harry who offends the puritans is put on the sex offender lists?
Orin, I'll look up some citations tomorrow but, as a general matter, the repeated uses of the word "believe" and "suspect" lead me to conclude that a bank does not have a positive duty to scrutinize every transaction for criminality. The workability of the contrary interpretation, in which the bank is required to examine billions of transactions and find the proverbial needle in the haystack, is at best questionable.
Where is the hypocrisy?
I'm at hateful as anyone, but I don't see the hypocrisy here. I don't see how defrauding investors (what Spitzer went after people for) = having sex with prostitutes (what Spitzer allegedly did).
In a sense, one could say that the federal investigation was Spitzer in converse: The Feds investigated otherwise local activity. But as press reports have indicated, the investigation was initiated to probe violation of federal bribery statutes. So there isn't any slice of delicious irony on my plate.
political appointments
Any public official's official conduct--introduction of a bill, for example, or a vote on a bill, a veto of an act passed by the legislature, and so on.
Losing a sporting contest deliberately.
Kidney donation
Not really. I'm self-employed, so some months are better than others. But my deposits are generally in a given range.
My wife gets direct deposit from her employer. Every two weeks approximately the same amount (from the same source) is deposited into her account.
You could go into our accounts and roughly track what we should deposit over the year. Since we've been at the same bank for several years, you could even create nice charts projecting income for next year. Plenty of programs can do this.
So it's really not that hard to "find" (a computer program does this) a suspicious transactions.
Granted, there are the occasional deviations. I might have a really good month, and my wife might get a nice annual bonus. But an occasional deviation from the norm is something banks expect. It's when there are several deviations that alerts are triggered and reports are filed. I would encourage you to read the "Know Your Customer" entry that I linked to, above.
In any event, it's not that hard to "know your customer."
I'm at hateful as anyone, but I don't see the hypocrisy here. I don't see how defrauding investors (what Spitzer went after people for) = having sex with prostitutes (what Spitzer allegedly did).
As I pointed out in a message above and as nearly every story on the matter has reported, Spitzer himself prosecuted and procured the convictions of at least two prostitution rings and harshly condemned them in public statements he made at the time. In this regard, he's a hypocrite whether one hates him or not. Even his former law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has come to his defense, has stated there is a good deal of hypocrisy evident here.
I'm very far to the left, I don't think Spitzer should have to resign over this, I don't hate him, but he's a hypocrite, like so many other public officials.
In the case of offices where the office holder serves gratis, it is at least lawful in the ordinary case for the government to create a salary for such office.
If that's the case (I have no idea), then I am indeed pleased with yesterday's revelation.
If what you say is correct, than I just lost a lot of respect for Spitz. I really liked him too.
Again, deviations that, in the absence of any evidence of malfeasance, are your own damned business.
Of course it's not hard! It's easy to abuse the trust of people that
Look, I'm all for banks cooperating with the FBI and IRS when asked to do so. It is an altogether different matter, however, for the bank to go reporting to the FBI and IRS on its own accord - they are not charged with enforcing the law nor policing the money (and if they were, they'd at least be subject to the strictures of the 4A!).
Now, if you want to argue that the IRS is chronically understaffed and can barely keep up its current duties, let alone go investigating people on its own volition (mostly true) then that's a good reason to simplify the tax code code and augment the IRS's enforcement arm. What it does not call for, however, is for law enforcement to co-opt private institutions into their plans thereby doing an end-run around the Constitution.
Where is the hypocrisy?
I think others have pointed it out, but before he was NY AG, and was in NYC, he went after Prostitution rings big time.
MY dislike if Spitzer is in his idea to use Government CIVIL suits to go after companies. Using the infinite deep pocket of the state to sit there in a civil suit till the defendant HAD to settle.
Spitzer himself prosecuted and procured the convictions of at least two prostitution rings and harshly condemned them in public statements he made at the time.
Mike&:
If that's the case (I have no idea), then I am indeed pleased with yesterday's revelation.
Oren:
[citation needed]
If what you say is correct, than I just lost a lot of respect for Spitz. I really liked him too.
Well it's in virtually every story appearing on the web. But since you insist on a citation, here is one.
"Spitzer Is Linked to a Sex Ring as Client" by DANNY HAKIM and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM in the New York Times. The link is to third page of story on which the following appears:
The same information appears in reports appearing in the web editions of other newspapers, but I'm not going to take the time to go through them again. I will tell you that in other stories, including another in the New York Times, Alan Dershowitz has quite a bit to say about Spitzer's hypocrisy and expressed disappointment that Spitzer wasted public resources on this sort of thing, although he generally came to Spitzer's defense.
Money laundering laws have been around for some time. Any field in what might be called financial services requires attention to the possibility of money laundering. Most institutions require their employees and even independent agents with whom they are contracted to complete a (simple)money laundring course from time to time.
The primary lesson has to do with suspicious transactions of varying type.
In the commission sales field, for example, a customer who wants to put money in and take it out of a vehicle without regard for early withdrawal penalties is a possible money launderer.
And the companies think the employee or agent has a positive duty under the law to report.
That is POSITIVE duty to report.
Are they wrong?
Beats me. But there is always the problem of letting something go and ending up in about as much trouble as you ever wanted if it gets out. Then you're a business partner of the bad guy.
Spitzer Allegations Send Wave of Shock by JAMES BARRON in the New York Times. The link is to the second page of the story, which states:
For more entertaining stuff on hypocrisy and men's sexually driven stupidity from the Dersh, the world's foremost expert on everything, see Early MSNBC Pundits Defend Spitzer, Lash Out at Prudish America by Tim Graham
My WCC class was very difficult (especially for only 2 credits!) and the Understanding book really helped me figure out the main federal statutes. It was an open book exam, so I had the main points highlighted and tabbed. Good luck.
When you do training on the Currency and Bank Retrieval System (CBRS), which is adminstered by FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) and maintained on the IRS computer system for the federal banking agencies, they make the point that there are lots of people who transact business in cash and that it is not remarkable without other evidence.
If Spitzer had withdrawn $10,000+ on a few occasions, the CTR's probably would most likely have gotten lost in the system. Instead, he showed up in the SAR system, and those are much more likely to be seen by human eyes.
Raw milk.
extortencourageprotection moneycampaign contributions:http://www.newsweek.com/id/54098Spitzer's career should've ended right then and there. But because the people he was destroying (businessfolk) were unpopular at the time (just after Enron), no one gave a hoot. After all, they probably did something wrong anyway.
To find out that he was prosecuting prostitution rings while using one himself? That's just the cherry of arrogance on this giant hot-fudge hypocrisy sundae.
(Again, one "L" in his first name.)
Of course prostitutes can be and are victims, but of what? They are victims of abuse and exploitation, but not of the mere act of prostitution. Make the crime the abuse and exploitation, not prostitution. If prostitution were legal, there would be much less abuse and exploitation.
Law enforcement also argue that prostitutes and their pimps subject johns to theft, robbery, assaults and so on. But that's no reason to make the mere act of prostitution unlawful. Again, there would be much fewer theft, robbery and assault offenses associated with prostitution were it legal.
I don't think that should be cause for a random Joe. But when the person in question is a powerful politician who has been given significant power by the populace, checking on suspicious financial transactions should be standard.
I'm a little concerned that the US Attorney's office might not have investigated had Spitzer had a (R) after his name, but that doesn't give me one more iota of pity towards Spitzer himself, a man who has never displayed pity when crushing others.
Im not an expert, but I believe you could (as long as you have any necessary license).
Eliot's Mess: Did The Payments Exceed $10,000?
"Everyone with the title that includes either the words
affirmative actionAttorney at Law ordiversityLawyer should be fired immediately. These people areleecheshipocrites and deserve no sympathy."Yes. THAT'S protected by the First Amendment (but only if you make bona fide efforts to distribute it).
This is a slight variation, but states routinely take this approach to unlicensed activity in professions that require licensing. If you don't have a license, you can give free medical advice or free massages or many types of services, but if you charge money, it's illegal unless you have a license. That differs from the prostitution example in that the license is totally unavailable for prostitution, but it's still a scenario in which you can give it away but not charge for it.
Who investigated/prosecuted Duke Cunningham? [Connecticut Gov.] John Rowland?
There's a certain cosmic symmetry to the fact that Gov. Spitzer is being raked over the coals for allegedly commiting acts that are illegal (but shouldn't be), when he made is reputation, in large part, for raking people over the coals for things that aren't illegal (but should be).
PS: please don't point out where my vision of the Karmic wheel falls off the wagon. I'm enjoying the moment too much.
PPS: somebody should investigate Spitzer for kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment. His poor wife look like she was his hostage.
I really haven't followed Spitzer's career -- would someone please give me an example of someone meriting "pity" who was "crushed" by Spitzer?
If Spitzer broke the law, he should get what's coming to him. But I don't see why I should feel sorry for anyone he busted. Please explain?
She looked a little catatonic at the press conference, but she'll wake up soon. And I expect that when she does, Eliot's life will get even worse. Hell hath no fury.
Yes. THAT'S protected by the First Amendment (but only if you make bona fide efforts to distribute it)."
Please educate me - why do you need to make an effort to distribute it? Art is still art even if privately held.
Even if you'd have to distribute, couldn't you make a form agreement where it would be agreed that the editing process would remove any identifying images. Splice all that together and you could market it safely. Besides, couldn't you keep a file of statements from the girls saying "we reviewed the rushes; didn't like them; deleted the scenes; set an appt to reshoot"? How hard is it to make a fact pattern that would allow you to survive the initial press reaction (no crime was committed) and have a real chance at having someone on the jury unwilling to convict for such a silly crime as high-end prostitution.
Those are four words not in Spitzer's vocabulary. His whole schtick became unleashing vast government resources to investigate the judgments of business people and extort high nuisance value settlements that made him look like he was standing up for the little guy.
(1) Spitzer enforced NY laws that the author dislikes.
(2) Analysts’ sunny forecasts for now-busted tech companies, Spitzer’s office discovered, were influenced by the client and investment-banking relationships. Sounds bustable to me.
(3) Whatever economists think about payola, it doesn't pass the smell test. You could probably find an economist to support abolishing tort law.
So, while I'm happy to see Spitzer go down (ahem) for his wrongs, I am not seeing how anyone he went after didn't deserve it.
It is not just about sex. It is also a social occasion. You might actually want to have a conversation with the lady between "jumps".
Now how many upper middle class well educated good looking ladies do you find who are willing to have sex for money? Well, you find more of them if you are willing to pay more money.
Some one who can do a discounted cash flow on a wasting asset is going to be a rarer find than a lady who can barely balance her checkbook.
Also, if you are so concerned about cases not going before a jury, you should be far far more concerned with ordinary criminal cases, where 95% of suspects settle before trial- perhaps because of cost benefit analysis?
No one likes a puritanical, holier-than-thou bully. You'd think other politicians would take that lesson to heart.
Somewhere in DC, clients 1-8 and 10 are voting in favor of generous funding increases for FBI and other agencies...
1) Torment banks;
2) Use your bank for shady transactions;
3) Bank finds shady transactions and reports them. Having been tormented, it seems to me the banks might have been itching for a chance at payback.
I don't know anything about the merits of Spitzer's suits against the investment banks, but this statement is just wrong--and aggravating in that it pretends to know how things actually work. As for nuisance suits, companies often settle just to avoid the huge cost of discovery or other litigation costs. In cases with little evidence but potentially huge liability, companies often settle because they are risk averse and if they were found guilty (even though there is a small chance of that) they would be financially ruined.
simply isn't a true statement. Please come back to us after you've graduated law school and have a little bit of experience in the real world.
It's amazing what Americans put up with for the convenience of law enforcement. Our forefathers never should have stood still for license plates on cars. If you move your day's pills into a different container, you're a druggie. If you carry a pry bar onto your neighbor's property, it's a burglary tool. Etc, etc.
I'm sure there are situations where if you fool a particularly dim-witted law enforcement officer, it's your fault, and you could be in trouble.
BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE “The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and “Follow the Money” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165
The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for “Humor” and “Political Analysis” are FANTASTIC!!!!
http://savagepolitics.com
True and if I would add a couple of additional points:
1) Oftentimes (depending on the industry and what sort of policy coverage they have) companies will take out an insurance policy to cover their liability costs and the insurance carrier will influence the decision whether to settle or fight a suit.
2) State Attorneys Generals have become the springboard for the political ambition of a lot of would-be governors and Senators particularly in a fawning media culture that loves stories about the “crusading public servant protecting the common person from the evil corporate special interests.” A company just doesn’t have to consider the costs of litigation but the damage to their reputation by an AG that wants to climb the political ladder with press conferences publicly trashing their good name.
3) Fighting a nuisance suit by a private party is different than fighting one by the government. I’m not sure what the extent of the powers of the NYAG but in MN our AG is also is in charge of regulating nonprofit industries (i.e. pretty much the entire health care sector except for drug and device companies) and hasn’t been above threatening to shut down a company or hospital while he or she is “investigating” them unless they cooperate and like Spitzer has used the threat of shutting down an entity to get them to agree to a “settlement” that amounts to little more than the AG making policy that the legislature rejected (similar to Spitzer’s frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry).
He's already explained why you're wrong. The statement you made — that nuisance suits almost never settle — simply isn't true.
So he asked for his withdrawal in cash, figuring that getting the cash would cause som attention.
Boy did it. Just not from the bank.
What is your profession Adam J? Do you have any real world experience? I can't believe anyone who practices commercial litigation would believe what you believe.
Now that that is settled, I won't respond further unless you meet my original challenge.
AA was dead regardless of what prosecutors did. They sold one thing: legitimacy. They lost that with Enron. Clients were fleeing from them long before any prosecutor got around to them.
Spitzer is what Mike Nifong would've been if Nifong came from old money.
Private nuisance suits are usually about money - Spitzer's were more about power and image.
My father, getting ready to buy a car, was told he needed a cashier's check.
The bank wouldn't give him one until the next day for some made-up reason. Probably didn't want to lose a day's interest.
So my father demanded cash instanter.
He got the check, with some glowering from the manager.
Now, if he'd been given the cash, $10k+ ?
Let's put it this way, suppose you an attorney with a prediliction for bringing nuisance suits- you have the resources to bring only one suit- one against company A, who has a prediliction to settle after wisely assessing its costs versus benefits. The second is against company B, who has a bulldog reputation for litigating every lawsuit endlessly with its 5000 attorney outside counsel lawfirm capable of putting off the lawsuit endlessly. Which lawsuit does the attorney bring? The "irrational" company B gets a pass, while company A suddenly finds itself having to fight another nuisance lawsuit.
Why do you think big companies like big firms for litigation? Gee... could it be to scare potential plaintiffs off by the boundless resources that could be brought to bear against their potential lawsuit?
If you want an example of a company that settles a suit for the nuisance value, just read any large manufacturing company's 10-K. There are a number of suits (such as brake pad-asbestos litigation) that companies decide to settle for strategic purposes even if they think they'll ultimately prevail. There are countless other examples in the fields of securities litigation, commercial litigation and products liability that any person with experience can point you to.
As for this - you're providing an example of the converse of the argument, which any college kid studying for the LSAT will tell you is invalid.
Second, I'm interested that such a wealth of detail about Spitzer leaked out so quickly. It seems to me that somebody wanted this story out and wanted it out quickly and in as much detail as possible. It is quite unusual, to say the least. Was that, too, politically motivated?
As to the Mann Act, it seems much more likely that the strongest case can be made against the madam or manager of the escort service. In addition, it would have to be proven that the prostitution element was premeditated - most escort services have, I believe, a disclaimer that they are supplying escort services only, and that what transpires between the escort and the client is a private matter. Everybody knows this is just a fig leaf, but is it enough of one to give him a defense?
1) he was a bully and a prosecutor, who holds so much power, of all people should not be a bully. A prosecutor doesn't have to tell people "I can ruin your life" or "I can destroy you" and he or she never should. A prosecutor should just do his or her job of investigating and prosecuting crimes, if the evidence supports such prosecutions.
2) he took actions to aggrandize himself, at the expense of what should be a prosecutor's primary ethic: to ensure that justice is served. Justice, in my view, is not served by leaking confidential investigative information to the press, that harm people's reputations. If you have case, bring it in court. Don't leak stuff to the press to grab headlines. Just indict/file suit, etc. With Spitzer, it was all about the press, to advance his career, and not about justice. He is Guiliani, but without Rudy's charm.
A fairly recent article in Vanity Fair, in which Spitzer is depicted as screaming obscenity filled rages at others ("I will rip your f--ing throat out, I will destroy you) with whom he had political disagreements confirms for me that he is an egomaniacal bully. As I said, good riddance.
By the way, I think he is toast on the Mann Act charge, unless there is some constitutional challenge to the statute. Ditto on the illegal structuring charge. He should have just used PayPal, without the shell company shenanigans.
If that left you underwhelmed how about using state resources to
getmanufacture dirt on a political rival.