Structuring Defenses

Defending a charge under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 means taking the statute apart element by element and asking what the government can actually prove about each one. A deposit chart is not proof of purpose. It is a picture that the government asks a jury to read a particular way, and most of the defense work consists of showing that the picture supports a different reading.

What follows are the lines of defense that recur in structuring matters in the Eastern District of Virginia. Which of them fit a given case depends on the records, the statements already made, and how the transactions were actually generated.

On this page

The Purpose Element

The offense is defined by purpose. Transactions arranged for the purpose of evading a currency reporting requirement are prohibited; transactions that merely happen to fall in a particular pattern are not. That distinction does most of the work in a contested case.

Purpose is almost always proved circumstantially, from timing, amounts, the choice of branches, and anything the defendant said. Each of those inferences has an alternative. Timing can follow a carrier schedule or a payroll cycle. Amounts can follow what a shift or a week produced. Branch choice can follow a delivery route or where a manager lives. The defense task is not to prove an innocent explanation but to establish enough of one that the inference the government needs stops being the only reasonable reading.

Where more than one person handled deposits, purpose also has to be attached to the right person. A schedule that looks deliberate at the level of an account may be the product of several people acting independently, none of whom held the purpose the statute requires.

Awareness of the Reporting Requirement

A purpose to evade a reporting requirement presupposes awareness that the requirement exists. Many people who handle currency in business have never been told how institutional reporting works, and some have been told something inaccurate.

What the person actually knew, and when, is therefore a live question. Bank disclosures, account-opening paperwork, compliance letters, prior conversations with tellers, and what an accountant or bookkeeper explained all bear on it. So does the absence of any such contact. Establishing the state of knowledge is documentary work, and it is easier to do before an interview has produced a summary in an agent’s words.

How the mental state is described to a jury comes from the current text of the section and from the instructions the district court gives. Those instructions are litigated, because the difference between phrasings can decide whether the evidence is sufficient.

The Transaction Set Itself

Every structuring case rests on a selected group of transactions. That selection is an argument, not a fact, and it can be attacked directly.

Transactions frequently enter the government’s series that do not belong to the theory: deposits made while the account holder was out of the country, deposits by employees following a standing instruction, transactions at a separate entity with its own books and its own manager, transfers between accounts of the same owner, and transactions that reflect an institution’s own policy. Removing them narrows the case and, if a conviction follows, narrows the sentencing calculation as well.

The records that do this work are ordinary business records: daily sales summaries, point-of-sale exports, staffing schedules, armored-carrier logs, travel records, and the commercial insurance policy that caps currency held on the premises. They are strongest when they were created before anyone knew of an investigation, which is why preservation instructions matter so much.

Reliance on Advice

Owners are often told by a bank employee, a bookkeeper, or an accountant how deposits should be handled. Where that happened, it speaks directly to purpose. A person who arranged transactions because a professional said to do it that way did not necessarily hold the purpose the statute describes.

Reliance arguments are fact-intensive and have requirements of their own, including what was disclosed to the adviser and whether the advice was followed as given. They are also perishable, because they depend on the memory of people who have no stake in the case. Identifying those witnesses early, and preserving the correspondence that shows what they were asked, is part of the initial response.

Statements, Searches, and Suppression

Structuring investigations produce statements. An agent arrives without notice, asks about banking habits in a conversational register, and writes a report afterwards. Whether that encounter was custodial, what warnings were given, whether consent to search was voluntary, and whether the report accurately captures what was said are all contestable.

Records obtained by subpoena and by warrant have their own issues, including the scope of what was authorised and whether devices or accounts were searched beyond it. Where a statement or a body of records is excluded, the remaining case is often the deposit chart alone, which returns the matter to the purpose element with far less to support it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it a defense that the money was earned lawfully?

Not to the element itself, because the offense turns on the purpose of the transactions rather than the origin of the funds. It matters a great deal elsewhere. A lawful source shapes the forfeiture claim, affects how the sentencing calculation is built, and changes the picture the court sees. It is also part of the narrative that makes an innocent explanation of the deposit pattern credible, so it is documented rather than merely asserted.

What if I never knew about the reporting rules?

Then a central element is in issue, because a purpose to evade a requirement assumes awareness that the requirement exists. What was disclosed at account opening, what a bank employee said, and what an accountant explained all bear on it. This is a documentary question before it is an argument, and the material that answers it is gathered early rather than raised for the first time at trial.

My employees made most of the deposits. Does that help?

It can, in two ways. Purpose has to be attached to a particular person, and a pattern created by several people acting on routine instructions may not reflect anyone holding the required purpose. It also affects which transactions properly belong in the government’s series. It cuts the other way as well, since the section reaches assisting in structuring, so the exposure of the employees is considered at the same time.

Can the deposit chart itself be challenged?

Yes. A chart is a summary prepared for litigation, and how it was built is open to examination: which accounts were included, what window was chosen, whether transfers between the owner’s own accounts were counted, and whether transactions were assigned to the right person. Charts also tend to omit the operational context that explains them, and that omission is the subject of cross-examination.

Does declining to speak with agents hurt me?

No. Declining to discuss a matter until counsel is retained is a lawful response and carries no penalty. In structuring cases it is often the difference between a contestable inference and a recorded explanation, because the purpose element is far easier to prove from a person’s own words than from account activity. Counsel can arrange an interview later on defined terms if that serves the case.

How early do these defenses have to be developed?

Before an indictment, whenever that is possible. The business records that explain a deposit pattern are overwritten, systems are replaced, and staff move on. Witnesses who can describe advice given at a branch counter forget the conversation. Once counts are returned, the same material has to be argued against a fixed charging document rather than used to influence whether it is filed at all.

Does a guilty plea end the forfeiture question?

Not automatically. Forfeiture runs on a separate track with its own filings and its own statutory deadlines, and the disposition of seized funds is negotiated or litigated as part of the overall resolution rather than assumed. Because those deadlines come from statute, they are confirmed with counsel when a seizure notice arrives rather than after the criminal case has been resolved.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Defenses to a structuring charge are built from business records and from what people were actually told, and both decay with time.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm has been practicing since 1997. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys handle criminal defense matters across those jurisdictions, which matters in federal practice because a single investigation frequently reaches conduct, witnesses, and records in more than one state. Mr. Sris brings a background in accounting and information systems from George Mason University, applied to complex financial and technology-related cases.

The firm serves Northern Virginia from 1655 Fort Myer Dr, Suite 700, Room 719, Arlington, VA 22209 and central Virginia from 7400 Beaufont Springs Drive, Suite 300, Room 395, Richmond, VA 23225. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

This page provides general information about defenses to structuring charges under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.

These defences apply to one offence. Our page on structuring charges sets out that offence from start to finish.