Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 560.125
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 251213
...eiture Act, in that the currency represented narcotics proceeds or the proceeds of some other criminal activityi.e., money laundering. The Complaint/Petition also asserted that Ledezma was carrying currency without a license, a felony violation of section 560.125, Florida Statutes (1995)....
...To further this goal, the code requires any money transmitter operating in the state to register with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance. See § 560.122, Fla. Stat. (1995). Operating as a money transmitter without registration is a third-degree felony and also exposes the offender to an administrative fine. See § 560.125, Fla....
...Initially, we consider Ledezma's admission that, although she was carrying nearly one hundred seventy-two thousand dollars, she did not possess a money transmitter's license. This is itself a felony and, certainly, Ledezma's carrying the currency constituted that felony. See § 560.125(1), (4), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...information charging him with three counts. In Count 1, the State charged Espinoza with unlawfully engaging in the business of a money transmitter and/or a payment instrument seller without being registered with the State of Florida in violation of section
560.125, Florida Statutes (2013), and, in Counts 2 and 3, with money laundering in violation of section
896.101, Florida Statutes (2014)....
...Just over a month following the fourth transaction, the State charged Espinoza, via information, with one count of unlawfully engaging "in the business of money transmitter while not being registered as a money transmitter or authorized vendor" in violation of sections
560.125(1) and (5)(a), Florida Statutes (2013) 1 (Count 1) and two counts of money laundering, in violation of sections
896.101(3) and
896.101(5)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2014) (Counts 2 and 3)....
...Espinoza moved to dismiss the information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) contending that the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against him. More specifically, Espinoza argued as to Count 1 that Bitcoin does not qualify as "money transmitting" under section 560.125, because Bitcoin is not "money" under the statute....
...er, either of which require registration as a money services business under Florida law. Given the plain language of the Florida statutes governing money service businesses and the nature of Bitcoin and how it functions, Espinoza was acting as both. Section 560.125, Florida Statutes (2013), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) A person may not engage in the business of a money services business or deferred presentment provider in this state unless the person is licensed or exempted from licensure under this chapter....
...be interpreted to mean "currency" and neither Bitcoin nor bitcoins are currency; (3) because Espinoza was merely a seller of bitcoins, his conduct does not meet the statutory definition of being a money transmitter or payment instrument seller; (4) section 560.125 requires the transmission of money to a third-party or location and that did not occur here; and, (5) applying section 560.125 to Espinoza's conduct would violate his due process rights....
...Inasmuch, Espinoza urges this court to apply the statutes as he wishes they were written instead of how they actually are written. We decline to do so. Espinoza is charged in Count 1 with engaging "in the business of money transmitter while not being registered as a money transmitter" in violation of section 560.125 governing money services businesses....
...In addition to claiming he is not a payment instrument seller, Espinoza asserts Bitcoin does not qualify as "money" or "monetary value" for purposes of being a "money transmitter." He argues the Florida Legislature could not have contemplated the application of section 560.125 to virtual currencies when the statute was enacted....
...or a means of payment." Id. (quoting Money , Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2009) ). Similarly, because Bitcoin unambiguously serves as a "medium of exchange," it necessarily qualifies as "monetary value" for purposes of sections 560.125(1) and 560.125(5)(a)....
...CONCLUSION In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court's order granting Espinoza's motion to dismiss the information and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded with instructions. After Espinoza's arrest, the Legislature amended section 560.125(1) to include the following language: "A deferred presentment transaction conducted by a person not authorized to conduct such transaction under this chapter is void, and the unauthorized person has no right to collect, receive, or retain any principal, interest, or charges relating to such transaction." See § 560.125(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...information charging him with three counts. In Count 1, the State charged Espinoza with unlawfully engaging in the business of a money transmitter and/or a payment instrument seller without being registered with the State of Florida in violation of section
560.125, Florida Statutes (2013), and, in Counts 2 and 3, with money laundering in violation of section
896.101, Florida Statutes (2014)....
...Just over a month following the fourth transaction, the State charged Espinoza, via information, with one count of unlawfully engaging "in the business of money transmitter while not being registered as a money transmitter or authorized vendor" in violation of sections
560.125(1) and (5)(a), Florida Statutes (2013) 1 (Count 1) and two counts of money laundering, in violation of sections
896.101(3) and
896.101(5)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2014) (Counts 2 and 3)....
...Espinoza moved to dismiss the information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) contending that the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against him. More specifically, Espinoza argued as to Count 1 that Bitcoin does not qualify as "money transmitting" under section 560.125, because Bitcoin is not "money" under the statute....
...er, either of which require registration as a money services business under Florida law. Given the plain language of the Florida statutes governing money service businesses and the nature of Bitcoin and how it functions, Espinoza was acting as both. Section 560.125, Florida Statutes (2013), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) A person may not engage in the business of a money services business or deferred presentment provider in this state unless the person is licensed or exempted from licensure under this chapter....
...be interpreted to mean "currency" and neither Bitcoin nor bitcoins are currency; (3) because Espinoza was merely a seller of bitcoins, his conduct does not meet the statutory definition of being a money transmitter or payment instrument seller; (4) section 560.125 requires the transmission of money to a third-party or location and that did not occur here; and, (5) applying section 560.125 to Espinoza's conduct would violate his due process rights....
...Inasmuch, Espinoza urges this court to apply the statutes as he wishes they were written instead of how they actually are written. We decline to do so. Espinoza is charged in Count 1 with engaging "in the business of money transmitter while not being registered as a money transmitter" in violation of section 560.125 governing money services businesses....
...In addition to claiming he is not a payment instrument seller, Espinoza asserts Bitcoin does not qualify as "money" or "monetary value" for purposes of being a "money transmitter." He argues the Florida Legislature could not have contemplated the application of section 560.125 to virtual currencies when the statute was enacted....
...or a means of payment." Id. (quoting Money , Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2009) ). Similarly, because Bitcoin unambiguously serves as a "medium of exchange," it necessarily qualifies as "monetary value" for purposes of sections 560.125(1) and 560.125(5)(a)....
...CONCLUSION In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court's order granting Espinoza's motion to dismiss the information and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded with instructions. After Espinoza's arrest, the Legislature amended section 560.125(1) to include the following language: "A deferred presentment transaction conducted by a person not authorized to conduct such transaction under this chapter is void, and the unauthorized person has no right to collect, receive, or retain any principal, interest, or charges relating to such transaction." See § 560.125(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...premiums, and the monetary value of the violation is $100,000.00 or more.”
Garcia-Simisterra agreed to plead guilty to “Counts I and II charged in the
Information” and to a separately charged count of operating an unauthorized
money-service business, Fla. Stat. § 560.125(5)(a)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
money service business, in violation of section
560.125(5)(c), Florida Statutes (2022); (5)
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...defendant's statements' that may be used as 'corroborating evidence' to
prove the trustworthiness of the memorialized confession or admission
the State seeks to admit into evidence.").
Additional support for this construction of section
92.565(2) is
found by examining section
560.125(8), Florida Statutes (2023), which
eliminated the necessity for corpus delicti in money laundering cases;
section
560.125(8) is the only other Florida statute besides section
92.565 to remove the corpus delicti requirement in certain
circumstances. Section
560.125(8) reads:
In any prosecution brought pursuant to this section, the
common law corpus delicti rule does not apply....
...Hearsay
evidence is admissible during the presentation of evidence at
11
the hearing. In making its determination, the court may
consider all relevant corroborating evidence, including the
defendant's statements.
Notably absent from section 560.125(8) is any requirement that the
"confession or admission" sought to be introduced be "memorialized."
When two statutes address similar subject matter but use different
language, courts should conclude that the distinction is intentional....
