4.18.1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) Money Laundering—Illegal Structuring,

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) See Statute

[Defendant] is charged with violating that portion of the federal money laundering statute that prohibits structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements. It is against federal law to engage in such conduct. For [defendant] to be convicted of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proven each of the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that [defendant] entered into a financial transaction or transactions, on or about the date alleged, with a financial institution engaged in interstate commerce, involving the use of proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically, proceeds of the [_________];

Second, that [defendant] knew that these were the proceeds of unlawful activity;

Third, that [defendant] knew that the transaction or transactions were structured or designed in whole or in part so as to avoid transaction reporting requirements under federal law.

A [withdrawal; deposit; transfer; etc.] of funds from a bank is a financial transaction.

Federal law requires that [withdrawal; deposit; transfer; etc.] of a sum of more than $10,000 cash [from; into] a bank account in a single business day be reported by the bank to the Internal Revenue Service.

Knowledge may not ordinarily be proven directly because there is no way of directly scrutinizing the workings of the human mind. In determining what [defendant] knew or intended at a particular time, you may consider any statements made or acts done or omitted by [defendant] and all other facts and circumstances received in evidence that may aid in your determination of [defendant]’s knowledge or intent. You may infer, but you are certainly not required to infer, that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted. It is entirely up to you, however, to decide what facts are proven by the evidence received during this trial.

Comment(s)

(1) “‘[T]he defendant need not know exactly what crime generated the funds involved in a transaction, only that the funds are the proceeds of some kind of crime that is a felony under Federal or State law.’” United States v. Isabel, 945 F.2d 1193, 1201 n.13 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting S. Rep. No. 433, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1986)) (alteration in original).

(2) The requirements for withdrawal/deposit transaction reporting are set forth at 31 U.S.C. § 5313; 31 C.F.R. § 103.22 (1997).

(3) The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(4), has a number of “commerce” requirements, and the instruction should choose the appropriate one. Some interstate commerce involvement is required, although a minimal effect is sufficient. United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 755 (1st Cir. 1999).

(4) If there is a criminal forfeiture count pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), see United States v. McGauley, 279 F.3d 62, 75-76 (1st Cir. 2002), for instruction language on “involved” or “traceable” property.