Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 4, 1993 TAG: 9307040036
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: D1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DOUGLAS PARDUE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Nobody thought too much about it two days later when the Radford University student deposited $6,000 more in cash.
And nobody was too troubled when she came in the next day with $3,000 more.
But people began to wonder when she drove in three days later with $6,000.
And when Mullins deposited $5,800 at an automatic teller machine and an additional $6,000 at the drive-in window, bank officials decided something was up.
They filed suspicious transaction reports with the Internal Revenue Service.
With those filings, the federal government turned one of its most powerful anti-drug weapons against Mullins, even though she never had been suspected of drug dealing or any other criminal enterprise.
Using the government's Money Laundering Control Act, IRS agents seized six vehicles, including a Rolls Royce, purchased with checks drawn on Mullins' account. Agents also seized the BMW Mullins drove when she made the drive-in deposits.
To Carl McAfee, Mullins' attorney, the seizure is an example of how the government can misuse the immense power it was given to combat drugs and organized crime.
Nothing evil was going on in this case, he said. It was just an innocent effort by a daughter and her father, a wealthy Southwest Virginia coal baron, to buy back personal possessions sold at a court-ordered auction to settle a divorce, McAfee said.
"The law was never intended for anything like this," he said. The law wasn't supposed to be turned on private citizens who are doing nothing wrong.
Federal prosecutors concede that the Mullins case is one of only a few times the 1986 law has been used in Western Virginia against someone not necessarily suspected of criminal activity.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Lloret said the case is not an example of government intrusion. Instead, he said, this is a classic example of the type of money structuring the reporting laws are designed to detect. It was done so blatantly it couldn't be ignored, he said.
The law requires banks to report any cash transaction of $10,000 of more. Structuring is an effort to avoid that reporting requirement by transferring large quantities of money in lesser amounts.
The law wasn't intended just for drug trafficking and organized crime, Lloret said. It also is designed to help the government detect white-collar fraud and tax evasion. Even if no other criminal activity is involved, structuring still is illegal.
People who aren't doing anything wrong have no reason to structure their money. They probably aren't even aware the law exists, because it requires the bank - not them - to file the report, Lloret said.
He readily admitted that "we do not think any drugs were involved" in the Mullins case. And, he said, the case is being handled as a civil forfeiture instead of criminal as it could be.
McAfee won't reveal exactly why Mullins made so many deposits in cash. But, he said, it stems from her parents' divorce, one that was "a little more than bitter."
The couple couldn't agree on a settlement, McAfee said, and the court had to auction off their $4.5 million estate - including an 8,000-square-foot mansion with helicopter hangar, overlooking the coal town of Clintwood.
The money Mullins is accused of structuring is cash she got through her father to help her buy back some of the things she valued from the home where she grew up, McAfee said. Her father, Alcieberry Mullins, owner of Aberry Coal Co., also planned to buy back much of his property, including the cars, McAfee said.
They initially thought they had to pay in cash, but then learned they had to use checks, McAfee said. As a result, he said, Denice Mullins gave the auctioneer two checks to hold until she had time to get back to her bank to cover them. She made some initial deposits, then had to rush to make more when she learned the auctioneer had cashed the checks early, McAfee said.
To McAfee, who served three months in prison in 1990 on a charge of telling a drug dealer how to structure money through a bank, the Mullins case is a gross example of governmental profiteering and intrusion into a private matter. He said federal prosecutors already have made a tentative offer to give back the cars if the Mullinses agree to forfeit $40,000 to the government.
Lloret agreed that the government has talked about a possible settlement, but said the bigger concern is finding out what happened.
"Every now and then, there is a bona fide reason" that could explain why deposits appear to be structured, Lloret said, "Maybe we've hit the case here."
But for now, Lloret said, the government has no idea why Denice Mullins structured nearly $40,000 through her account. "We just don't know where the money is coming from or why it was structured . . . Whatever the motive, it's a classic case of structuring."
by CNB