2149. Jury Instruction -- Avoiding A Reporting Requirement (CMIR) -- 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 required 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 CMIR reporting requirement of federal law.

You are instructed that Title 31, U.S.C. § 5316, and its implementing regulations, provide in pertinent part that each person who physically transports, mails or ships, causes to be physically transported, mailed, or shipped, or attempts to cause to be physically transported, mailed or shipped, currency [or other reportable monetary instruments (describe)] in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 at one time[FN1] from the United States to any place outside the United States, or into the United States from a place outside the United States, shall make a report thereof.
  1. FN1. Practitioner's Note: See definition of "at one time," Title 31, C.F.R., § 103.11.

Proof that the defendant knew the purpose of the transportation, transmission or transfer or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer was to avoid the CMIR 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. 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 transportation, transmission or transfer, or attempted transportation, transmission or transfer (specify criminal conduct alleged in the indictment) knowing that they were designed in whole or in part to avoid the CMIR reporting requirement because: (state theory under which knowledge will be proven).

OPTIONAL WHEN APPROPRIATE:

A person is deemed to have caused such transportation, mailing, or shipping when he aids, abets, counsels, commands, procures, or requests it to be done by a financial institution or any other person.

Title 18, U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(ii)

Title 31, U.S.C. § 5316

Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.23

Granted ____

Denied ____

Updated September 19, 2018