The defendant has been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(C) 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 totaling 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 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 financial transaction or attempted financial transaction was to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity 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 violation of this section] represented that the property involved in the financial transaction or attempted financial transaction was [the proceeds of specified unlawful activity] or [property used to conduct or to facilitate specified unlawful activity].
The defendant's subsequent statements or actions should be considered in determining whether 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 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 18, U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(C)
Title 31, U.S.C. §§ 5313 and 103.22Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.11