First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years).
...
Hope you didn't get your $10k from "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Over 10k simply means that they failed to report transactions over $10k, a failure to comply with AML reporting regulations. On top of running an exchange & pushing Xanax like a bunch of high school kids.
If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase.
Lol, so that is how you got your "$10k in undeclared cash over 3 years'?
Let me help you out a bit with your interweb lawyerin'.
They pleaded guilty to running an unlicensed exchange. As an exchange, they're obligated to report such transactions. They didn't, so got nailed for that too. That's why the article says "
Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Ya brah, if the government can only articulate that they didn't declare cash in excess of $10k, then they are light weights.
Normally the government will provide an estimate of how much in cash they brought in for 3 years.
It is possible, that in the filed complaint, there are actual cash estimated for the 3 years.
The fact that the article doesn't say what those numbers are, make me think the government doesn't know,
so they through that count in for good measure. Bro-tatoer.
You should'a sold your pro lawyerin' to that pair of financial moguls, maybe they wouldn't "