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 8300 reporting requirement of federal law.
You are instructed that Title 26, U.S.C. § 6050I, and its implementing regulations, provide in pertinent part that each person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of such trade or business, receives currency in excess of $10,000 in a single transaction or in two or more related transactions -- to file a report with the Internal Revenue Service. A transaction includes, but is not limited to, a sale of goods or services; a sale of real property; a sale of intangible property; a rental of real property or personal property; an exchange of cash for other cash; the establishment or maintenance of or contribution to a custodial, trust, or escrow arrangement; a payment of preexisting debt; a conversion of cash to a negotiable instrument; or the making or repayment of a loan. You are [reminded/instructed] that a [describe particular trade or business] is a trade or business within the meaning of § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Knowledge of the defendant's purpose to avoid the 8300 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 8300 reporting requirement; knew because of circumstantial evidence that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to avoid the 8300 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 8300 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 8300 reporting requirement because: (state theory under which knowledge will be proven).
Title 18, U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii)
Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.22
Title 26, U.S.C. § 6050ITitle 26, C.F.R. § 1.6050I-1T