31 U.S.C. § 5324 – Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirement
Structuring Attorney Boston / Structuring Defense Attorney in Massachusetts
If you have been charged with structuring in federal court, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney today. Call (781) 797-0555 for a free consultation today. Our federal defense attorneys defend people facing allegations of structuring and other federal crimes in Boston, throughout Massachusetts, and around the United States.
What is structuring?
Structuring is the avoidance of reporting large cash transactions. The law requires people to report cash transactions of over $10,000 by filing Form 8300. When a person makes multiple deposits into bank accounts that total more than $10,000, with the purposes of avoiding the reporting requirement, that may constitute the crime of structuring. Of course, there may be a number of reasons that a person makes deposits into different accounts, but be aware that you may raise the scrutiny of bank employees and in turn, federal authorities, if you make suspicious deposits. For example, depositing $9,500 one day and $1,500 the next could raise red flags.
Drawing unwanted attention can lead to questions from bank employees, IRS agents, or other federal agents. If you are questioned about your bank activities, you may want to speak with a federal defense attorney prior to deciding to engage in such an interview. Very often, a person’s statements get them into big trouble when it comes to a criminal case.
What does the government need to prove for a structuring charge?
Like other criminal charges, there are certain elements that the Assistant U.S. Attorney (“AUSA”) will need to prove in order to secure a conviction. The AUSA, who is the federal prosecutor, needs to prove the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an example of instructions that a judge might give to a jury before their deliberations, outlining the requirements for a conviction:
FIRST, that the defendant had knowledge of the currency transaction reporting requirements;
SECOND, that the defendant knowingly and willfully [structured] or [assisted in structuring] or [attempted to structure] or [attempted to assist in structuring] a currency transaction;
THIRD, that the purpose of the structured [or attempted] transaction was to evade the currency transaction reporting requirements of § 5313(a);
FOURTH, that the defendant knew that structuring was unlawful; and
FIFTH, that the structured transaction(s) involved one or more domestic financial institutions.
You may find the defendant guilty of violating [§ 5324(3)] [§ 5324(a)(3)] whether or not the domestic financial institutions(s) filed or failed to file a true and accurate CTR. You may also find the requisite knowledge on defendant’s part by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence of defendant’s conduct. In other words, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant structured a transaction in currency with one or more financial institutions, that the defendant did so for the purpose of evading the transaction report requirement, and that defendant knew that structuring was unlawful, then you should find the defendant(s) guilty as charged, regardless of whether the domestic financial institution failed to file a true and accurate CTR. If you do not so find, then you should find the defendant not guilty.
The jury will also be instructed that if they don’t find even one element beyond a reasonable doubt, then the verdict should be not guilty.
What are the potential penalties of a federal structuring charge?
If you are convicted of structuring in court, you can face up to five years in federal prison. The potential penalties go up if you are convicted of violating another law along with structuring, or if the structuring is “part of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period.” If those criteria are met, the maximum prison sentence goes up to ten years.
How to defend against a structuring charge in federal court
If you are being accused or have been indicted for structuring, don’t lose hope. As mentioned above, the government has a lot to prove before sending you to prison.
To find someone guilty of structuring, the government has to prove five things, and they must prove every single one of them beyond a reasonable doubt. Our job is to show that one or more of these things simply isn’t true.
Here’s how we break it down.
1. Did you even know about the bank reporting rules?
Most people don’t. The government has to prove that you knew banks must report cash transactions over $10,000.
Defense:
We might explain that you had no reason to know this rule.
- You don’t work in banking.
- Nobody told you.
- You weren’t trained in financial reporting.
- You made deposits the way any normal person would.
If they can’t show you knew the rule existed, the case should end right here.
2. Were you actually “structuring” anything?
The government has to show that you broke up deposits or withdrawals on purpose.
Defense:
We show that your transactions had innocent explanations:
- You deposited money as it came in.
- You didn’t want to carry large amounts of cash at once (for safety).
- A teller may even have suggested smaller deposits (which happens all the time).
- Other people may have made deposits without coordinating with you.
Regular financial habits are not a crime.
3. Was your goal to avoid the bank filing a report?
This is a key point. It’s not enough for the government to say you made small deposits; they must prove you did it to dodge a report.
Defense:
We may establish that avoiding a report was not your goal. You were simply doing what made sense:
- Depositing cash when you had it.
- Splitting deposits for convenience or safety.
- Paying bills on different days.
- Trying to avoid account holds or delays, not avoid a government report.
If avoiding the report wasn’t the purpose, there’s no crime.
4. Did you know structuring was illegal?
This is the element the government often struggles with.
Defense:
Nearly everyone has the same reaction: “Wait, that’s illegal?”
We may show:
- You’d never been warned.
- You had no reason to know this was against the law.
- You thought you were just managing your own money.
If you didn’t know it was illegal, the government cannot convict you.
5. Did the transaction involve a U.S. bank?
This is usually straightforward, but the government still has to prove it.
Defense:
If the deposits didn’t go through a qualifying financial institution, or if the government can’t tie specific transactions to specific banks, this element may fail too.
The Big Picture
To convict you, the government must prove all five elements.
To defend you, we only need to raise reasonable doubt about one.
Common themes in a strong defense:
- You didn’t know the rule.
- You didn’t know structuring was a crime.
- Your deposits had normal, practical reasons behind them.
- There’s no evidence of a plan to avoid a report.
When jurors see that your behavior fits everyday financial life, and not a criminal scheme, a structuring case can fall apart.
Structuring allegations are serious. Don’t talk to anyone before retaining a federal defense attorney. Contact Simons Law Office today at (781) 797-0555.
References:
31 U.S.C. § 5324 – Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement
