the second can last case today is four one zero zero zero four six people versus twenty four thousand eight hundred fifty three dollars counsel  the car they stopped shortly before two am on march twenty sixth two thousand and nine the currency is the defendant mr cleves is the claimant police seize the currency and the state filed a claim for forfeiture the state alleged for basis or for fitting the currency one for a violation of the cannabis control act two for  violation of the money laundering statute and lastly one for money laundering based on a violation of the illinois currency reporting act at the stump self cleaves told police he got the current fee from family in the one nine hundred seventy one oldsmobile cutlass later that day and again at trial he said he got twenty thousand of the dollars from a wong time friend in decatur to purchase two apartment buildings near ball's state university in muncie indiana that friend darryl johnson testify similarly for days after the hearing the court without stating why found none of the allegations were sufficiently proved and thus granted claimants motion to dismiss the state's calling the state  our argument is simple the totality of the evidence presented at the hearing shows that twenty four thousand eight hundred fifty three dollars was possessed in violation of the money wandering statute and should have been forfeiting what's our standard there were many appearances the standard is at the moment deferential that goes back to the two thousand and five decision of the illinois supreme court associated with criminal activity either cannabis rugby league or money laundering specifically the probable cause to see the kurds i'm sorry what was pacifically the probable cause to stop so we're starting to build a relationship there with cannabis can control act violation there were materials in the trunk bags incident to the arrest of the claimant on a warrant so the finding of the currency i think is not an issue twenty four thousand you know some dollars amount two o'clock in the morning in her and city in two different pockets on the individual need to go more into the probable cause to see because you started with what is the standard of review and what what are you asking me now to address well actually i don't think i asked you about th show probable cause to forfeit and as we all know that's more than a reasonable suspicion but less than crime aphasia and substantially less than preponderance of the evidence i think it's also important to no statutes require that the probable cause determination be established at the time the complaint is filed so that left then the trial court with the question by the end of the hearing whether the totality of the evidence show probable cause to forfeit the currency the court found it did not and granted defendants motion to dismiss the state's complaint that leads us then to the two questions that i will prevent to this court did the trial court err and what is the appropriate standard of review and i've already mentioned that historically it has been deferential determination that we now use deferential standard for historical facts witness credibility things of this sort but the actual determination of whether probable cause exists or existed but at the risk of offending a polak from early in the last century probable cause is probable cause is probable cause standard that has not been adopted in illinois and it should be in this appropriate now let me give the claimant credit for having a the elephant in the room credibility his credibility and that of his long time friend carol johnson stated great credibility was certainly an issue here and apparently a determin finding at the end of the state's evidence which means the state totally failed to prove probable cause so the court must have decided that with the claimant evidence the state's showing you know felt the fact the court did not forfeit the currency must mean it found the claimant and johnson credible their explanation for the source of the currency and for how it was transferred the state failed to show the currency originated from drug transactions cannabis transactions controlled substance transactions after all the court did deny the stakes claim for forfeiture under the drug asset forfeiture procedure act nevertheless the currency still could be criminal property criminal and properly subject to forfeiture this leads then to the stage two arguments first if the claimant and johnson actually did what they told the court they did the currency had been in a structure financial transaction least two separate occasions and at the time of the stop it was in a third structured transaction all in violation of the illinois currency that not what you are arguing here i don't what i'm arguing is that the pattern the pattern of withdraw all shows and intent to avoid the reporting transaction recurrency reporting requirement that if you were dropped if for example you were withdrawing four thousand on monday and wednesday and friday purely for the perks for the purpose of avoiding the reporting requirement why i have chosen to take four thousand dollars out of my account on three different occasions you can sure sure but if you want to keep the state from latching on to your money the end you need to realize that a structured transition comprises eight components and the one you're really asking me about is the one infection seven v eight seven the eight of the currency reporting act that is a person structure translation trant structures a transaction if he is for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of this act now if you want if you're asking can you  proven guilty then it requires a substantial amount of evidence but to hold onto your currency the state only needs to prove find to establish probable cause to for many of us i guess i'm having a hard time we mean how i could even be charged under my hypothetical let alone be fair you only you probably couldn't well you probably wouldn't but  argument seems to be that and just as turn did what he suggested and took four thousand dollars out of his bank account three times to accumulate twelve you can never be found guilty of violation of the act but the state would you know all the pain only for a violation of this act would seem to minimize compared to the orphan sherm twelve thousand dollars question imprisonment on a class two felony is not t time i won't one of my two sons money for the down payment on the health i withdrew money from a couple of different accounts put it into a checking account well in your scenario just as turner to stay out of the slammer and to keep the money you simply would need to a debt of a legitimate purpose for the transaction i'm sorry yes the reporting act applied to financial institutions and not to individuals that is correct with one profound exception set forth in the act itself th person involved in real estate closings settlement sales or auctions went of the real estate closing take place there was no closing here there was an intent there was a  section eight one point five b i i money laundering occurs when a person transports transmitter transfer attempts to transport transmitter or transfer a monetary instrument to avoid the transaction recall reporting requirement under state law so the argument is that the transfer of currency from johnson to cleves of twenty thousand dollars if and it was an attempt to avoid the trans the reporting requirements of state law they succeeded he was then going to go to indiana carrying the currency across state lines and purchased an apartment building for morning my name is jeff justice my favorite movie since jerry maguire in the famous line from that movie is show me the money what this case is about is show me the felony three of the fork house require the state to say there was this money was related to unlawful or criminal activity they couldn't do it at trial they didn't do it in or asked mr mansfield why was this stuff see the patrol officer said i seized it i didn't think there was any illegal activity i didn't have any evidence of any money laundering this is the passenger the claimant is the passenger the police officer said the detective who made the final decision was an army officer said he smelled cannabis and then they found i granted the driver smoking a joint so what what does that how does that prove that this money is illegal drug money that was again they didn't arrest they didn't seize the car they admitted that the car was oh totally unrelated to the claim and he was just the man who picked him up for a couple of drinks and the backpack was unrelated in any way to the claimant so he had no evidence at all when they se the seizure is dependent upon who the money was found in possession if it was found in possession of the driver maybe but in the possession of an interested party who was a passenger who had money on his person i would suggest that it is no different than justice turner's example if you had twelve thousand dollars in these pocket but then justice white or excuse me judge white find that there was probable relationship of the money to the person was that it was associated with the marijuana there was no association and the police officers admitted this on cross examination that there was no  passenger who possessed the money and the reward and any suggestion of marijuana and so yes on one fortunately i disagree with her initial finding but i think this is a situation where i have a client it wouldn't matter if instead the twenty four thousand dollars was an issue instead it was two hundred forty thousand or two point four million that make any difference i'm stumped because i can't i'm trying to figure out what the inference is you're asking me to draw or not to i'm not i'm asking you if the claimant and sort of having twenty four thousand dollars in his possession at two point four million dollars in cash in his possession would that make it any difference the answer in my opinion is no  claimant is smart enough to say when the card says words you get this money it's none of your daily business and that ends the subject matter the but what happened in this case like every citizen who gets confronted by a police officer they try to explain and he created an inconsistency was his explanation of the source of the money and judge white was then asked to deal with that and what was interesting is that you got brought up in the first part of the case was the elephant in the room was credibility and it related to mr johnson and mr please whoa wait a minute it doesn't stop there it has to do with the police officers as well and judging their credibility the patrol officer was very straightforward he said i seized it because you know i want to do the explanation the detective the street crime the drug cop who deals with this stuff all the time was much more a vase and basically he started coming up with reasons and i said ok what are those reasons what crime and where did this money come from and all he could say was it was suspicious because and i quote normal people don't carry twenty four thousand dollars in cash so that made it suspicious therefore he seized directed that we continue to be seized so now the state presents this evidence in front of a judge and when he is cross examined about the idea of ok where did what does this money prove because what money laundering is washing bad money with good money so you got us prove where the bad money came from or some evidence of it and they couldn't do it he kept saying it was suspicious their own cases attempt to avoid reporting money dealing with an institution and basically they've they've their argument you ask opposition ok is a crime you can't have cash you can't do a real estate transaction unless you go through a bank and use it is to touche they make that statement in their brief my client this is march of zero nine he's an entrepreneur he sees a business opportunity the housing market is terrible so he wants to buy some houses and just like the guy that comes to fix your driveway is this going to be a cash job or are you going to write me a check and is there a price  know that there is you can buy things cheaper for cash sometimes with tween individuals that is not illegal and what they're doing and what he i presented the financial records the bank accounts every single transaction from the source of the money mr jones is a way of examples there are hundreds of a t m withdrawals this is a man that works fifty sixty hours a week and  hot hard place to work there are transactions there are two hundred three hundred five hundred dollars ok transactions in these exhibits there's a couple of thousand dollar withdrawals and when he got his income tax return of forty five hundred dollars can probably twenty five hundred to three thousand dollars he took three thousand dollars of his income tax out in cash to treat of self and he testified that i accumulated this cash over a large period of time it would his seventh great best friend came and said i got a business opportunity he gave it to him and said invest it make you some money there's nothing wrong with that and what they're trying to do is what just as pope focused on is to say wait until you get all the way over to indiana and you're supposed to close this transaction the seller is now wired to report this transaction cash and that's the weakness of their argument from the beginning i'm do activity of drug drug dealing under section under the money laundering act section a wine there is a requirement that the financial transaction involve criminally derived property under section a two there is a requirement that there be a specified criminal activity under the one the state plaque section a one point five forfeiture money laundering occurs for purposes of forfeiture when the person transports transmitter or transfers attempts to transport transmit or transfer a monetary instrument to avoid the transaction reporting requirement under state law the other argument the state made in experience is that the claimant from heroes shall i say misrepresentation to police and the differences between blast this simple inconsistency in the story he told at the stop the profound differences between the snob story and the story to the police twelve hours later and to the court nearly nine months later identify he was trying to high money he was trying to launder money or dollars or forty six hundred depending to whom he was talking and there's also one more interesting unexplained fact he was found with forty seven dollars less than six thousand  one pocket he was found with fourteen thousand plus three hundred in the other pocket but he said that what he did is he got twenty thousand from johnson six thousand he put in one pocket fourteen thousand he put in the other pocket now arguably he could have spent part of the six thousand for drinks that were that the extra three hundred come from at home when i'm doing laundry