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 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)][FN1] in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 at one time[FN2] 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.
- FN1. See Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.11( ).
FN2. 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 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).
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)(3)(C)Title 31, U.S.C. § 5316Title 31, C.F.R. § 103.23