Structuring Elements of the Offense

A structuring prosecution under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 has to satisfy each element separately, and a jury is told what those elements are in the instructions the district court gives at the close of evidence. Reading the charge as a list rather than as a story is the first thing defense counsel does, because a deposit chart that looks damaging as a narrative often leaves one element thinly supported.

What follows is the structure of the offense. The precise formulation used in any particular case comes from the current text of the section and from the instructions the court settles with the parties, and those instructions are themselves litigated.

On this page

A Domestic Financial Institution

The transactions have to involve one or more domestic financial institutions as the statute defines that term. The definition is broader than ordinary usage and reaches beyond banks, so the identity and character of the entity is occasionally in issue, particularly where transactions ran through a money services business, a credit union, or a casino. Where the government instead proceeds on the branch of the section covering trades and businesses outside the financial sector, or the branch covering currency moving across the border, the proof required changes accordingly.

One or More Transactions

The section speaks of structuring any transaction, and it is satisfied by a single transaction as well as by a series. In practice the government presents a series, because a pattern is what makes purpose visible. That practical reality gives the defense a foothold: if the series is the evidence of purpose, then which transactions belong in the series becomes a contested question rather than a background assumption.

Transactions that entered the chart for reasons unrelated to the theory, including deposits made by other people, transfers between the account holder’s own accounts, and activity at a separate entity, are challenged on this element rather than saved for sentencing.

Structuring, Attempting, or Assisting

The prohibited act is stated three ways. A person may structure, may attempt to structure, or may assist in structuring. The alternatives matter because they reach different people. An owner who set a deposit policy, a manager who carried it out, and a bookkeeper who advised on it occupy different positions, and the government does not have to prove the same conduct against each.

The same section also reaches conduct aimed at the report itself: causing or attempting to cause an institution to fail to file a required report, and causing or attempting to cause it to file a report containing a material omission or misstatement of fact. Which theory is charged determines what the evidence has to show, and a charging document that blends them is worth testing.

The Purpose of Evading a Reporting Requirement

This is the element that decides most contested cases. The transactions must have been arranged for the purpose of evading a currency reporting requirement, which presupposes awareness that the requirement exists. A pattern alone does not establish either.

Because purpose is proved circumstantially, the element is attacked with alternative explanations that are documented rather than argued: insurance limits on currency held overnight, armored-carrier schedules, branch hours, payroll cycles, and the ordinary rhythm of a business that takes in cash. Where a bank employee, bookkeeper, or accountant advised on how deposits should be made, that advice bears directly on purpose and is established while the witnesses still recall it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the government have to prove where the money came from?

No. The origin of the funds is not an element of the offense, which is why currency from a lawful business can support a charge. The source still matters outside the elements, because it shapes the forfeiture claim, affects how a sentencing calculation is built, and makes an innocent explanation of the deposit pattern more or less credible to a jury.

Can one transaction be enough?

The text reaches structuring any transaction, so a single transaction can satisfy the act element. As a practical matter the government presents a series, because purpose is inferred from pattern. That reliance on pattern is what makes the composition of the series a live issue rather than an accounting detail.

What is the difference between structuring and assisting in structuring?

The section states both, so a person who arranged the transactions and a person who helped arrange them are each within its reach. The distinction is about conduct and knowledge rather than about severity. It has practical consequences for employees, bookkeepers, and family members, whose interests can diverge from the account holder quickly enough that separate counsel is considered early.

Where do the jury instructions come from?

The district court settles the instructions with the parties, drawing on the statutory text and on the formulations used in this circuit. They are not boilerplate. How the purpose element is worded can determine whether the evidence is sufficient, so defense counsel proposes language and objects to language rather than accepting a draft.

If one element fails, does the whole charge fail?

Each element has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so a genuine failure of proof on any one of them defeats the count. That is why the elements are addressed separately in motion practice and in cross-examination, rather than met with a single overall account of what happened.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Structuring cases are argued element by element, and the element that decides most of them is purpose.

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 the elements of structuring 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 are the elements the government must prove. Our page on structuring charges covers the offence as a whole.