Boston Structuring Defense Attorney | 31 U.S.C. § 5324
If you have been charged with structuring transactions to evade federal reporting requirements, you are facing a serious federal offense that can carry prison time, financial penalties, and long-term consequences for your personal and professional life. Structuring cases are often misunderstood because many people accused of this crime were simply handling their own money in ways that seemed normal or practical.
At Simons Law Office, we defend individuals facing federal structuring charges in Boston, throughout Massachusetts, and across the United States. If federal agents have contacted you, your bank has raised concerns, or you are under investigation, it is critical to speak with a Boston federal structuring defense attorney before answering any questions.
Call (781) 797-0555 today for a free confidential consultation.
What Is Structuring Under Federal Law?
Structuring is defined under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and generally involves breaking up cash transactions into smaller amounts to avoid federal reporting requirements. Financial institutions are required to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000 by filing a Currency Transaction Report (CTR).
When someone deposits or withdraws money in amounts designed to stay below that threshold — particularly when those transactions add up to more than $10,000 — the government may allege that the person was attempting to evade the reporting requirement.
For example:
- Depositing $9,500 one day and $1,500 the next
- Making multiple deposits at different branches
- Spreading transactions across multiple accounts
- Structuring deposits over several days
While these actions can trigger scrutiny, it is important to understand something critical: not every pattern of deposits is illegal.
People often deposit money in smaller amounts for legitimate reasons — safety, convenience, business practices, or cash flow timing. The key issue in a structuring case is not just what you did, but why you did it.
How Structuring Investigations Begin
Structuring cases often start with bank reporting systems, not law enforcement directly. Financial institutions are trained to detect patterns that may suggest suspicious activity. When certain patterns appear, banks may file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
From there, investigations may involve:
- The IRS
- Federal law enforcement agencies
- The U.S. Attorney’s Office
- Subpoenas for bank records
- Requests for interviews
In many cases, individuals do not realize they are under investigation until:
- They are contacted by federal agents
- They receive a subpoena
- They are asked to explain their banking activity
- They are indicted
If you are approached by investigators, do not speak with them without an attorney. Statements made in these early stages are often used to build the government’s case.
What the Government Must Prove
To convict someone of structuring, federal prosecutors must prove several elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
These elements typically include:
1. Knowledge of Reporting Requirements
The government must prove you knew that banks are required to report transactions over $10,000.
2. Intentional Structuring
You must have knowingly structured (or attempted to structure) transactions.
3. Purpose to Evade Reporting
The transactions must have been conducted specifically to avoid triggering a report.
4. Knowledge That Structuring Was Illegal
This is a crucial and often difficult element for the government to prove.
5. Use of a Domestic Financial Institution
The transactions must involve U.S. banks or financial institutions.
If the government fails to prove even one of these elements, the case should result in a not guilty verdict.
Penalties for Federal Structuring Charges
Structuring is a federal felony, and the consequences can be severe.
A conviction may result in:
- Up to 5 years in federal prison
- Significant fines
- Forfeiture of funds involved in the transactions
- A permanent criminal record
Penalties can increase to up to 10 years in prison if:
- The structuring is part of another illegal activity, or
- The conduct involves more than $100,000 within a 12-month period
In addition to criminal penalties, structuring cases often involve asset forfeiture, where the government attempts to seize money tied to the alleged transactions — sometimes even before a conviction.
Defending Against Structuring Charges
Structuring cases are highly defendable because they rely heavily on proving intent and knowledge. At Simons Law Office, we focus on breaking down the government’s case element by element.
1. Lack of Knowledge of Reporting Rules
Most people do not know about federal banking reporting requirements.
Defense strategy:
- You were never informed of the $10,000 rule
- You do not work in banking or finance
- You had no training or reason to know
- You handled money the way any ordinary person would
If the government cannot prove you knew the rule, the case may fail immediately.
2. No Intentional Structuring
The government must prove you intentionally broke up transactions.
Defense strategy — we show that your deposits had legitimate explanations:
- Depositing cash as it became available
- Safety concerns about carrying large amounts
- Business cash flow patterns
- Bank teller suggestions
- Multiple people making deposits independently
Normal financial behavior is not a crime.
3. No Intent to Evade Reporting
This is one of the most important elements.
Defense strategy: even if transactions were below $10,000, that alone is not enough. The government must prove your purpose was to avoid reporting.
We may demonstrate:
- You were managing cash flow
- You were avoiding holds or delays
- You were making deposits based on timing or convenience
- There was no plan or scheme to avoid a report
If avoiding a report was not your goal, there is no structuring offense.
4. Lack of Knowledge That Structuring Is Illegal
Many people are shocked to learn structuring is a crime.
Defense strategy:
- You had never been warned
- You believed you were acting lawfully
- You were simply managing your own finances
- There was no intent to violate the law
This is often one of the weakest points in the government’s case.
5. Weak or Incomplete Evidence
The government must tie specific transactions to specific intent.
Defense strategy:
- Challenging bank records and assumptions
- Showing incomplete or misleading financial analysis
- Highlighting gaps in the investigation
- Demonstrating alternative explanations
The Big Picture in Structuring Cases
To convict you, the government must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
To defend you, we only need to create reasonable doubt about one.
Strong structuring defenses often center on:
- Lack of knowledge
- Lack of intent
- Ordinary financial behavior
- Absence of a deliberate plan
- Misinterpretation of banking activity
When jurors see that your actions reflect everyday financial decisions, not criminal intent, the case can fall apart.
Why You Should Not Speak to Investigators
Structuring cases are often built on statements made by the accused. Federal agents may approach you in a way that feels informal or routine. It is not.
Even simple explanations can be:
- Misinterpreted
- Taken out of context
- Used to suggest intent
Before speaking to anyone — including bank representatives or federal agents — you should speak with a defense attorney.
How Simons Law Office Can Help
At Simons Law Office, we take a strategic, detail-driven approach to structuring cases. These cases are not won with general arguments — they are won by understanding the financial facts better than the government does.
Our approach may include:
- Analyzing bank records and transaction patterns
- Identifying legitimate explanations for deposits
- Challenging assumptions about intent
- Evaluating whether the government can meet its burden
- Defending against forfeiture of funds
- Preparing for trial or negotiating favorable outcomes
