The defendant has been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) which requires knowledge that the transaction or attempted transaction 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 transaction knowing that such transaction 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 involves 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 totalling more than $10,000 during any one business day.[FN2] A financial institution 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 United States 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).
Knowledge of the defendant's purpose to avoid the CTR reporting requirement may be established by proof that the defendant: actually knew that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to avoid the CTR reporting requirement; knew because of circumstantial evidence that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to avoid the CTR reporting requirement; or, knew because he was willfully blind (or purposefully ignorant) to the fact that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to avoid the CTR reporting requirement. For example, a person who intentionally subdivides a lump sum of money into smaller amounts under the $10,000 reporting requirement for no legitimate business reason, could be said to have known that this was done for the purpose of avoiding the reporting requirement.
In this case it is the government's theory that the defendant engaged in the financial transaction[s]: (specify financial transactions alleged in the indictment) 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 31, U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii)
Title 31, U.S.C. §§ 5313 and 103.22Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.11