by Curt_Anderson on October 19, 2022 11:07 pm
Here is the gist of the factcheck on Rep. Comer's allegation against Hunter Biden. For complete analysis see link.--CA
The misleading claim that bank reports show Hunter Biden ‘committed serious crimes’
[A] former Treasury official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political nature of Comer’s comments, described SARs reports as merely “a tip.” He noted that the threshold for filing a SAR is not especially high and that many banks file the reports just to be on the safe side. “There is an incentive that, when in doubt, to file a report,” he said.
In other words, we have established that a filing of a SAR does not mean a bank believes a client has committed a crime, as Comer claimed. In fact, Comer should well know this. He has posted on the committee’s minority website a Sept. 2 letter from a Treasury official that plainly states that SARs are “preliminary and unverified tip-and-lead information on possible violations of law.”
The Pinocchio Test
Comer may soon be in a significant position of power. But he needs to get his facts straight. Even if as many as 150 SARs were filed concerning Hunter Biden’s business dealings — a number that remains unconfirmed — that does not mean that he committed “serious crimes” or that banks were “pretty confident” that a serious crime was committed. Instead, these reports are merely tips that something may be suspicious — raw intelligence that still needs to be vetted, confirmed and possibly investigated.
Comer earns Three Pinocchios.
washingtonpost.com
by oldedude on October 21, 2022 2:34 pm
The unknown "treasury official" is "correct"ish. SARS cannot, by law, be introduced as evidence in court. Basically, you treat them like a CS. You don't want to burn them, so you support that information with looking at the wire transfers/ structuring and layering, whatever. You put it in to your own words and that is your evidence. Treasury has Agents that will support those documents if need be. Working with these for about 15 years, they are pretty damning evidence that you just get the banking records and see for yourself (the subpoenas are easy, and the banks return them in a matter of a day or two). Rephrase the SAR and present.
These are much better than an anonymous source that leaks case information. So again, there's your double standard.