Amendments to 560.125

1. State v. Espinoza

   264 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

   • Motion for summary judgment
   • Motion to dismiss

   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. Stat. (2014). Accordingly, the State charged Espinoza under the prior version of the statute.

   PAGE 1061
2. In re Forfeiture of ($171,900)

   711 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 11 times

   Customs seized the currency and turned it over to Metro-Dade Police for forfeiture proceedings pursuant to state law. Metro-Dade Police filed a Complaint/Petition for Judgment of Forfeiture against the Claimants, alleging that the currency constituted contraband under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, in that the currency represented narcotics proceeds or the proceeds of some other criminal activity — i.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).

   PAGE 1272
3. State v. Exantus

   59 So. 3d 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times

   The issuing magistrate was required to rely solely on the affidavit when considering, under the totality of the circumstances, whether there was probable cause that Exantus acted unlawfully under sections 560.125 and 896.101 and whether a nexus to these offenses existed. The affidavit contained information that Exantus behaved erratically during the traffic stop, Bucky alerted during an air sniff and a controlled box test, and $83,220 in U.S. currency was discovered in a plastic bag hidden in the rear of the vehicle. We, like the magistrate, conclude the totality of these factors established a factual basis for the magistrate to find probable cause to issue the search warrant to conduct an ion scan of the vehicle. Yet the trial court, when it reviewed the magistrate's findings, appeared to focus on the sufficiency of the affidavit as to whether there was probable cause to find that Exantus committed a drug offense rather than whether there was probable cause to find that he committed the offenses of acting as a money transmitter and money laundering. The trial court failed to afford great deference to the magistrate's decision and appeared to apply an improper de novo…

   PAGE 362
4. Garcia-Simisterra v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

   984 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2020)   Cited 3 times

   1 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). In exchange for his pleas, the State agreed to reduce the money-service business charge from a first-degree felony to a third-degree felony. Garcia-Simisterra ultimately entered a plea of nolo contendere to the money-laundering and workers-compensation fraud counts. In exchange for his pleas, the State reduced the charges to third-degree felonies, which involve a monetary loss of less than $20,000. Fla. Stat. §§ 896.101(5)(a), 440.105(4)(f)(1). Garcia-Simisterra agreed, as documented in his plea agreement, to be sentenced to a "withhold of adjudication" and three years of probation, along with a "special condition of disgorgement of criminal proceeds" in the amount of $104,662. The plea agreement explained, and Garcia-Simisterra admitted, that the disgorgement sum was "seized in connection with the State's investigation in the underlying SUBJECT MATTER and is currently in the custody of the Broward Sherriff's Office and/or The Worker's Compensation Fraud Task Force…

   PAGE 979
5. Carwise v. State

   821 So. 2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 2 times

   It appears that the Florida Legislature is leaning in that direction. Without considering whether the corpus delicti rule is substantive or procedural, it should be noted that the 2000 session of the Florida Legislature chose the trustworthiness approach over the corpus delicti standard on two occasions. See Sections 92.565 and 560.125(8), Florida Statutes.

   PAGE 309
6. Lindemann v. Glob. Servs. Grp., LLC

   Case No. 8:18-cv-1546-T-33SPF (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2018)

   4 more...

   Despite its threat, the Lindemanns assert that Global Services Group never intended to, and could not, take legal action against them. (Id. at ¶¶ 70-79). They note that Global Services Group was "not registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation" as a collection agency, as required by law before attempting to collect a debt. (Id. at ¶¶ 72, 75). So, the Lindemanns reason, Global Services Group knew it "could not legally sue [Jason] to collect the debt without first registering" as a collection agency. (Id. at ¶¶ 76, 79). Even had Global Services Group been properly registered, Global Services Group allegedly "could not sue [Jason] to collect the alleged debt because it would be void as either an unauthorized deferred presentment transaction[] under Florida Statute section 560.125(1) or an unauthorized consumer finance loan with an interest rate above 18 percent per annum under Florida Statute section 516.02(c)." (Id. at ¶ 77).

   PAGE 3
7. State v. Jarrett

   317 S.W.2d 368 (Mo. 1958)   Cited 8 times

   Section 560.120 (see also section 560.125) does not mention any specific intent as an essential element of the offense. The information follows the statute and it stands decided that the charge is good without the language mentioned by petitioner. State v. Moody, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 816, quoting State v. Scott, 332 Mo. 255, 58 S.W.2d 275, 277 [2], 90 A.L.R. 860, and citing other authority; State v. Maddox, Mo., 250 S.W.2d 971; State v. Strada, Mo., 274 S.W. 34 [1]; State v. Hahn, 316 Mo. 229, 289 S.W. 845, 846 [1]. In addition, the instant information explicitly charged a taking with intent to deprive the owner of the use of the property.

   PAGE 369
8. State v. Thompson

   588 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 7 times

   Defendant further contends in this point that the court erred in failing to instruct on Robbery Second Degree and Stealing Property of a Value of at Least $50. In his argument he makes no further reference to the failure to instruct on Robbery Second Degree, and the only reference on failure to instruct on Larceny is the citation to a case, State v. Herron, 349 S.W.2d 936 (Mo. 1961). Herron holds as do many other cases, that if there is substantial evidence in a First Degree Robbery case to support an instruction on Stealing the court is required to give such instruction. Robbery in the Second Degree is committed when the property is relinquished through a threat that injury may be inflicted at some different time. § 560.125 RSMo. 1969. There is no evidence in the instant case supporting this lesser charge. Defendant points to no evidence which supports the giving of an instruction on Stealing. There is none. Defendant's testimony in a large degree corroborates that of Norman. He testified that he told Norman: "Hey, you want to make a hundred bucks?" Give me the money and I'll split it with you .." Norman said: "No, you can't do that, no." Defendant said: "I'll take it…

   PAGE 39
9. United States v. Murgio

   209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses

   • Motion to dismiss

   A money transmitting business that operates "without an appropriate money transmitting license in a State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony" is "unlicensed." 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(A). The state at issue here is Florida, and Florida law provides that "[a] person may not engage in the business of a money services business ... in this state unless the person is licensed or exempted from licensure under this chapter." Fla. Stat. § 560.125(1). Chapter 560 defines a "money services business" as "any person" who "acts as a ... money transmitter." Id. § 560.103(22). And the statute further defines "money transmitter" as an entity that "receives currency, monetary value, or payment instruments for the purpose of transmitting the same by any means, including transmission by wire, facsimile, electronic transfer, courier, the Internet, or through bill payment services." Id. § 560.103(23).

   PAGE 712
10. State v. Rust

    468 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. 1971)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on robbery in the second degree under § 560.125, V.A.M.S., on the basis that the taking was accomplished through fear of injury threatened to be inflicted at some different time. We conclude that the evidence as introduced did not require such an instruction. Unless additional testimony is offered on retrial of the case, the court will not be required to so instruct.

    PAGE 207