It’s an old, familiar argument.
Who are YOU to say that checks aren't cash?
Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should not go to prison on money-laundering charges because the 2002 campaign transaction involved a $190,000 check and not cash, his lawyer argued before the Third Court of Appeals Wednesday.
Houston lawyer Brian Wice said the Legislature later changed the money-laundering statute to include checks, proving that DeLay’s transaction was not covered by the law. But Travis County prosecutor Holly Taylor said lawmakers in 2005 were only clarifying what was already the law.
She said Wice’s argument is ludicrous because a drug dealer would have been guilty of money laundering if he used a money order but not a cashier’s check.
Taylor pointed out that criminals using checks were being successfully prosecuted before the 2005 change in the law, while Wice countered that their lawyers “didn’t have the sense” to raise the no-cash defense.
Yes, it’s our old friend the checks aren’t cash argument. Perhaps it’s just that previous lawyers didn’t have the brass to raise that defense. I’ll be honest, I thought the Court of Criminal Appeals settled this matter in 2010 when they unanimously ruled that the state’s money-laundering statute did apply to checks. That was an appeal from the Ellis/Colyandro trial, so I guess DeLay gets to make the same arguments himself. There’s also an issue being raised about whether or not the corporate donors knew what their money was going to, but this to me is the signature question. All we know for sure is that the CCA will get to rule on it again. The Trib has more.
Pingback: DeLay gets off – Off the Kuff