Structuring Penalties and Sentencing

People charged under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 usually ask first what the statute carries. That is the wrong first question, because the statutory ceiling is rarely what determines a structuring sentence. The number that matters is produced by a guidelines calculation, and that calculation is assembled from facts, most of which can be contested.

The ceiling itself is set by the text of § 5324 and should be confirmed against the current version of the section with counsel rather than taken from any summary, including this page. What follows is how the calculation is actually built in a structuring case in the Eastern District of Virginia, and where a defense has room to work.

On this page

Where the Guidelines Calculation Starts

Structuring is grouped with the monetary-transaction offenses for guidelines purposes. The calculation opens at a base offense level fixed by that grouping, then moves upward according to the value of the funds involved, applied through a table that steps the level up as the figure rises.

That structure has an important consequence. Two people convicted of the same conduct can face very different ranges purely because of how the funds were counted. The base level is not where cases are won or lost. The value figure is.

Whether the currency came from unlawful activity, and whether the defendant knew that it did, is treated as a separate question from the structuring conduct. A structuring case built on receipts from a lawful business is calculated differently from one built on proceeds of another offense, and establishing which category applies is part of the sentencing work rather than an afterthought.

The Value Figure and How It Is Contested

The government usually presents a total drawn from an entire deposit series over a long window. The defense position is often that the series sweeps in transactions that had nothing to do with the charged purpose: deposits made when the owner was away, deposits by an employee following a standing instruction, transactions at a second entity with its own books, and transactions that reflect a bank policy or an armored-carrier schedule rather than anyone’s intent.

Narrowing the set is factual work, and it depends on records. Daily sales reports, staffing schedules, carrier logs, and the insurance policy that limits currency on the premises can each remove transactions from the total. Because the table steps, removing a block of transactions can move the calculation down a level or more rather than merely trimming the edges.

This is also why the sentencing position should be developed during the investigation and not after a plea. The records that shrink the figure are business records, and they become harder to obtain as time passes and systems are replaced.

Adjustments That Move the Level

Several adjustments recur in structuring matters. Sophisticated means can be argued where the government says the transactions were routed through multiple institutions, entities, or nominees. The defense answer is usually that ordinary business structure is not sophistication, and that entities existed for reasons unrelated to reporting.

Role in the offense matters where more than one person participated. An owner who set a policy and an employee who followed it do not occupy the same position, and the adjustment recognises that. Obstruction can be added where records were destroyed or accounts were given that the government says were false, which is one reason preservation instructions go out early.

Acceptance of responsibility moves the calculation the other way and is usually the single largest downward adjustment available. It interacts with how and when a case resolves, so it is weighed alongside the decision whether to contest the value figure at a hearing.

Forfeiture, Fines, and Consequences Beyond the Sentence

Forfeiture is a separate consequence, not part of the guidelines range, and it frequently arrives before the criminal case is resolved. Funds already seized from an account are litigated on their own track under their own statutory deadlines, and a claim has to be filed in the correct form and on time. Confirm those deadlines against the governing text with counsel.

A fine may also be imposed. Its range is drawn from the guidelines fine provisions and from the statute, and the court considers the ability to pay. Restitution is a different mechanism and generally turns on whether an identifiable party suffered a loss, which is often not the shape of a structuring case.

Consequences outside the sentence deserve their own analysis. A conviction can affect professional licensing, access to banking and merchant services, government contracting eligibility, and immigration status for anyone who is not a citizen. Those effects are assessed with counsel before a plea, because some of them are not reversible afterwards.

What the Court Weighs Independently

The guidelines range is advisory. The court also weighs the statutory sentencing factors, which include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for deterrence and for protection of the public, the kinds of sentences available, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparity among defendants who committed similar conduct.

In structuring matters those factors often carry real weight, because the conduct sits at a distance from the harms the reporting regime exists to detect. A defendant whose currency came from a lawful business, who has no criminal history, and who has already lost the funds to forfeiture presents a different picture from one whose transactions concealed proceeds of another offense. Making that distinction concrete, with records rather than adjectives, is the substance of a sentencing submission.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does 31 U.S.C. § 5324 carry?

The ceiling is stated in the text of the section, and it should be read in its current form with counsel rather than taken from a summary. It is worth saying plainly that the ceiling is rarely the operative number. Structuring sentences are driven by the guidelines calculation, which starts from the value of the funds involved and moves through adjustments, and by the statutory factors the court weighs on its own.

Does it matter that the money was from a lawful business?

Yes, though not as a defense to the element. The source of the currency is treated separately from the structuring conduct in the calculation, and a case built on lawful receipts is assessed differently from one built on proceeds of another offense. The source also bears directly on the forfeiture claim and on the picture presented to the court under the statutory factors, so it is documented rather than asserted.

Can the amount the government counts be reduced?

Frequently. The total is an assertion built from a deposit series, and parts of that series often reflect staffing, carrier schedules, insurance limits, or a separate entity rather than the charged purpose. Because the table steps upward at intervals, removing a block of transactions can lower the offense level rather than merely adjusting the figure. This is usually where a defense finds the most ground at sentencing.

What happens to the funds the government already seized?

They are litigated in a separate proceeding with its own filings and its own statutory deadlines. That track does not wait for the criminal case, and a missed deadline can end an argument that was otherwise available. Because the deadlines come from statute rather than from local practice, confirm them with counsel as soon as a seizure notice arrives.

Is probation possible in a structuring case?

Whether a sentence other than imprisonment is available depends on where the calculation lands and on the statutory factors, and it cannot be predicted from the charge alone. What can be said is that the calculation is contestable and that the outcome is shaped by the record built beforehand. Any assessment of the likely range is made on the specific facts, with counsel, after the file has been examined.

How much does pleading early change things?

Acceptance of responsibility is normally the largest downward adjustment available, and its availability is affected by whether contested issues are litigated and when. That creates a genuine tension, because contesting the value figure is also where the calculation can move. Sequencing those decisions is a strategic judgment made with counsel once the government has disclosed how it built its total.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Sentencing exposure in a structuring case is built from facts rather than announced, so the records that define the value figure are gathered while they are still available.

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 sentencing exposure for 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 penalties attach to one offence. Our page on structuring charges covers the offence as a whole.