|
|
"I
can’t believe this is to be my home until the year
2020. By then, I’ll be past the age of having
children." |
|
--
Chantal McCorkle, from
the Women's Federal Correctional Institute |
On November 4, 1998, Chantal and
her husband William were convicted on fraud and money laundering
charges stemming from William’s infomercial and real estate seminar business.
This was a victimless crime. The United States Government never
charged that William’s program didn’t work—in fact, hundreds
of satisfied customers were willing to testify to the tens of
thousands of dollars they made using his system. Any customer who
wanted a refund, received one.
The crime: Television
infomercials using four paid actors (along with 25 - 40
satisfied customers) and rented props to display wealth—a
mansion, a boat, an airplane. The product? $69 packages explaining
how to buy and sell foreclosure properties for profit. Many of the
customers, and in turn, William’s business, prospered. Chantal—beautiful,
blonde, and British—was her husband’s greatest prop. Although
she was running her own small magazine business, she would show up
for video tapings at William’s request, reading her script and
then returning to her own work.
|
"It
is possible that the case should never even have come to
court. It is our understanding US Nationals involved in
similar behaviour are simply told to stop rather than
prosecuted."
|
|
--
Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trial Abroad |
The McCorkles’ lawyers assured
Chantal that she would not be found guilty since all charges
related to William’s business. William’s lawyer, F. Lee Bailey—straight
from the O. J. Simpson case—advised Chantal to look pretty; her
own lawyer, Mark Horwitz, told her to keep her mouth shut.
|
"The case is
troubling. . . The defendants are
young. . . They have no prior records. . . This is a very stiff sentence and it gives me great pause."
|
|
--
Federal Judge Fawsett, sentencing Chantal |
So why
did Judge Fawsett impose such a sentence? Federal Mandatory
Minimum Sentencing Laws force judges to impose fixed sentences for
certain crimes. According to these laws, once Chantal was found
guilty of fraud, the government considered ALL the money she ever
earned to be fraudulent. Once the money was considered to be
illegally earned, each time that Chantal transferred over $10,000
from one bank to another was considered a separate count of money
laundering.
As part of the war on drugs during
Reagan’s term, Congress enacted several mandatory sentencing
statutes intended to stem drug trafficking in the United States.
Although these laws were not intended for white-collar crimes,
they may mandate stiff penalties even for first-time, non-violent
offences. (For in-depth information on Federal Mandatory
Sentencing, visit www.FAMM.org.)
Federal Mandatory Sentencing decrees penalties based on a
complex point system. Under this system, Chantal received 40
points. Had she received 3 points more,
she would have been sentenced to life in prison without parole.
|
Had she been convicted of second-degree murder, child rape, child
pornography, or smuggling 33 tons of marijuana into the United
States, she would have received a lighter sentence. Had she been a
criminal, she might have been able to trade information to the
prosecutors for a reduced sentence. |
Money laundering charges account for
the bulk of her 24-year
sentence. Yet, according to the definition of money laundering
established by the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (which
linked money laundering to mandatory sentencing), Chantal should
never even have been convicted.
The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, part of the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, made money laundering a
federal crime. It created three new criminal offenses for
money laundering activities by, through, or to a financial
institution. These offenses are:
- Knowingly helping launder money from criminal
activity.
- Knowingly engaging (including by being willfully
blind) in a transaction of more than $10,000 that
involves property from criminal activity.
- Structuring transactions to avoid Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
reporting.
|
|
- Comptroller
of the Currency, U.S. Government |
First and foremost, Chantal never
knowingly or willingly engaged in any criminal activity. She never
considered William’s business to be criminal; the money was, in
Chantal's view, even to this day, legally earned. Her
involvement in the business was minimal; the account was in
William’s name only.
Additionally, the transfers to
William’s account in the Grand Cayman Islands which were
considered money laundering were all completely legal and visible.
When F. Lee Bailey first met with Assistant Attorney General Lisa Young, he
informed her of the account and the transfers. She didn’t object—nor
did she warn Bailey that the transfers of $10,000 or more could be
considered money laundering. During the next seven months, while
investigations were ongoing, Chantal transferred funds into this
account at William’s request. The McCorkles paid taxes on this
money and made no attempt to hide it.
Then the government charged Chantal with money laundering.
(For more information on money laundering, see
www.occ.treas.gov/launder/mlca.htm.)
|
