2150

Jury Instruction—Avoiding a Reporting Requirement (CTR)—18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(ii) (Sting)

The defendant has been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §  1956(a)(2)(B)(ii) which requires knowledge that the transportation, transmission or transfer, or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer was designed in whole or in part to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under [state] or [federal] law. In this case, defendant is charged with engaging in a transportation, transmission or transfer, or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer knowing that such transportation, transmission or transfer, or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer was designed in whole or in part to avoid the CTR reporting requirement of federal law. You are instructed that Title 31, U.S.C. § 5313, and its implementing regulations, provide in pertinent part that financial institutions[FN1] shall file a report for each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer by, through, or to such financial institution which involve a transaction in currency of more than $10,000. Multiple currency transactions are treated as a single transaction if the financial institution has knowledge that they are by or on behalf of any person and result in either cash in or cash out totaling more than $10,000 during any one business day.[FN2] A financial transaction includes all of its domestic branch offices for purposes of this requirement. You are [reminded/instructed] that the term "financial institution" includes [insert appropriate reference from 31 C.F.R. § 103.11(g) to fit facts of your case.] FN1. For regulations applicable to casinos and to the U.S. Postal Service, see Title 31, C.F.R. §§ 103.22(a)(2) and (a)(3), respectively, and modify instruction accordingly. FN2. For applicable regulation, see Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.11(t). Proof that the defendant knew the purpose of the transportation, transmission or transfer or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer was to avoid the CTR reporting requirement may be established by proof that a [law enforcement officer] or [any other person at the direction of, or with the approval of a federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section] represented that the property involved in the transportation, transmission or transfer, or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer, as derived from some form of unlawful activity, and the defendant's subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true. Such proof may consist of circumstantial evidence. In this case, it is the government's theory that the defendant engaged in the transportation, transmission or transfer, or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer knowing that such transportation, transmission or transfer, or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer knowing that they were designed in whole or in part to avoid the CTR reporting requirement because: (state theory under which knowledge will be proven). Title 18, U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(ii) Title 31, U.S.C. § 5313 and 103.22 Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.11 Granted ____ Denied ____