Structuring is a common tactic used to launder money, specifically to place funds into the financial systems. Structuring is a federal offense even if the funds are legally obtained.

FinCEN produces an Educational Pamphlet on the Currency Transaction Reporting Requirement :Notice to Customers: A CTR Reference Guide
The full brochure can be accessed through the following link http://www.fincen.gov/whatsnew/pdf/CTRPamphletBW.pdf

Below is an excerpted frequently asked question from that brochure.
Can I break up my currency transactions into multiple, smaller amounts to avoid being reported to the government?

No. This is called “structuring.” Federal law makes it a crime to break up transactions into smaller amounts for the purpose of evading the CTR reporting requirement and this may lead to a required disclosure from the financial institution to the government. Structuring transactions to prevent a CTR from being reported can result in imprisonment for not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000. If structuring involves more than $100,000 in a twelve month period or is performed while violating another law of the United States, the penalty is doubled.

the ‘structuring’ reg is used to catch money launderers…that’s the basis for a Court not finding the law to be an infringement of individual liberty (don’t get me started on all the criminal laws that trade liberty for perceived safety)

legislators and naive citizens think that the ‘structuring’ law won’t be used to persecute otherwise innocent people…but it was sold to them to create a probable cause argument to investigate people/businesses that were not on law enforcement’s radar…the premise being if that if there was no money laundering there would be no prosecution.

and in this case there was NO finding of money laundering – for those of you without a clue, money laundering DOES NOT involve making deposits less than 10k so the that feral government keeps it’s collective nose out of one’s business, it involves money obtained from illegal means (drugs, prostitution, etc…) being ‘washed’ through a legitimate business.

that was NOT going on in this case

but a prosecutor who wanted a pound of flesh decided to charge ‘structuring’ because he could…not because the underlying crime of money laundering had been occurring.

this is all about control of people and criminalization of otherwise lawful conduct that individuals wish to keep private

just my $.02…coming from over sixteen years of state law enforcement as a police officer and a prosecutor.

look beneath the superficial if you want to educate yourselves

You railed on Bill H. telling him he didn’t understand one of the “bedrocks of jurisprudence,” and “fundamentally requires that the elements constituting guilt be admitted.”

Yet Bill H was right on the money and it was you who misunderstood the very nature of this case and how there was no requirement of an admission of guilt. The hyperbole you laid down was shown to be false and yet you kept pushing it.

Now you bring forth the idea that this is a unique crime that does not require intent, and then say that the mere splitting up of the funds was a crime – intent or no intent.

So lets look at what happened here. The Sowers had a settlement in which there was no admission of guilt and no forfeiture of their money. They talk to the press about the case and suddenly the government wants the money. The government admits their going after the money is because the Sowers talked to the press and yet you seem to have no problem with that.

God forbid that a citizen should be able to speak out against a ridiculous law. How dare the Sowers speak out! They must be punished!

The Sowers negotiated a settlement in which they paid a fine, made no admission of guilt, and no forfeiture of their money. Then, because the government didn’t like what they said, they are harassed and sued for more money.

Why you think that is acceptable is beyond me.

With all due respect and despite your protestations to the contrary, it is you are wrong in this case on the “bedrock of jurisprudence” issue.

You state:

That the rule for plea bargains has almost invariably been that although a person who admits guilt as part of a plea bargain does so voluntarily, the admission is necessary to receive the reduced sentence.

However, the linked article says something different:

Ultimately, the e-mails show,[chief of asset forfeiture and money laundering section, Stefan] Cassella had no objection to including a clause in which Sowers “admits no wrongdoing.”

Now I realize you have couched your response with terms like “almost always,” but that would belie the meaning of the term “bedrock,” which invariably is unshifting and unchanging.

Even so, looking at this case, is it your position that there was no admission of guilt required (contrary to the article) , or is it your position that the government violated the “bedrock of jurisprudence by not requiring an admission of guilt?

Now, let’s take a second and expose that you don’t know what you are talking about. Do you question the premise that even for hundreds of years – since before this country was formed – a plea bargain by its very nature is considered to be an admission of guilt in exchange for a punishment that is less than the maximum? That if fundamentally requires that the elements constituting guilt be admitted? That the rule for plea bargains has almost invariably been that although a person who admits guilt as part of a plea bargain does so voluntarily, the admission is necessary to receive the reduced sentence. If you question any of this, set forth a single fact that supports your contention.

This is bedrock of American jurisprudence. No one seriously questions this. I appreciate that your definition is that is has to be a least 200 years old and come from the famous legal documents. But you can’t just make up definitions for words. Judges and courts have been using this legal term of art for terms far less deeply embedded.

Listen, when you conspire to end run federal government reporting requirements, you are going to have issues. But if you go back to my original post, you will find out that was not even the purpose of my comment.

Bill, respectfully, you are little out of your depth in this conversation, you really are.

Gitacarver, I don’t even understand half of what you have written. You point is always so confusing I just quit.

It is confusing that you changed your own statements to try and make a point? It is confusing that in this case the Sorrows did not have to plead guilty to anything? It is confusing that people don’t have to prove their innocence and the idea that “if you have nothing to hide” is exactly backwards?

Those thoughts confuse you?

Wow. Just wow.

What I’m telling you is that for a plea bargain, most courts in most situations require that the defendant admit guilt. I’m not a criminal lawyer but I’ve known enough prosecutors (and watched enough tv) to understand that this is a fundamental precept in most plea bargains.

OK, Ron (that’s 1!). I have to ask just what is it you do for a living. I’ve told you what I do, and it isn’t anywhere near as complicated as criminal defense. However, I don’t use shows like American Chopper as part of my curriculum vitae. That doesn’t help me when I’m trying to convince someone their 5-8,000 in custom work is safe with me. Along those same lines, using shows like Law & Order SVU or Hawaii Five-O for your legal training doesn’t help your credibility, either. I honestly cannot ever recall anything the flavor-of-the-week deputy DA said being used as a fundamental precept in anything said anywhere in any court in the US. Of course, your mileage may vary.

The problem is you reject as just outlandish things that are bedrocks of law. Which is fine but you don’t seem to know that you are doing just that.

No, no. Gitarcarver has it exactly right. The Magna Carta is a bedrock of law. The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights is a bedrock of law. The 10 Commandments is a bedrock of law.

What Stefan Casella says because he’s butthurt someone dared protest their innocence to a free press is not a bedrock of law. Fearing at every turn you could be an unwitting felon is not a bedrock of law. Fearing the state because you don’t wish to expose yourself to the mercy of their inspection at any time is not a bedrock of law. Matter of fact, it’s called totalitarianism. Let that soak in for a few seconds. Realize that it isn’t my position, or Gitarcarver’s, or anyone else who has crossed swords with you on this. It’s yours.

Bill, I disagree with you but I take you seriously. I have to tell you, an article telling me someone had nothing to hide does not mean that they had nothing to hide. The underground economy of cash that evades taxes means that you and I pay a ton more in taxes than we should (or said better, our deficit/debt is much higher). People in cash businesses just have to live with the fact that we have laws that make them suspects because the data is overwhelming that people with cash under report income. (High on this list? Criminal lawyers.)

My though experiment is hardly vile. First, vile is a crazy strong word, right? Second, I’m saying put yourself in the prosecutor’s shoes for a second. To do that, we have to assume that the law is right and this couple has done something wrong to see analyze their action through their own lens.

I think any time you are doing something in an effort to trick the government or monitoring of your activities, that is a bad thing.

You didn’t ask. You asserted. I responded, noting that your little thought experiment was rather vile. We don’t need to pretend what and why happened. Walter was kind enough to point us toward the relevant
articles, which you admitted you hadn’t read. Did you bother to read the articles (yes, I am going to do it again!) Ron? I’m going to guess that you did, since you are back and in full cry.

Getting to your aside: (I don’t think deposits of 10K or better should be reported, since the vast majority of people who make these deposits are not criminal. I see you didn’t address MY assertion that this could have been handled differently. You honestly don’t see the problem with making everyday activity a felony? Really? I’ll get to your statement about having nothing to hide in a bit. )

I didn’t say no law was broken. As it was put by another poster (I’m really trying to be kinder and gentler, here) the law is an ass. I did say it was a dubious law. So no, no double standard here. From my rant- yes, I will stipulate it was a rant, I even considered placing a /rant tag, as a sort of cherry on top- it should be fairly plain that I have little regard for laws that make whole classes of people criminals simply because they engage in everyday activities, such as running a successful business. Note that no other allegation was made against the creamery. No health violations, no work code infractions, nada.

Which leads me to your view that if they had nothing to hide, they had nothing to worry about. Did you note that the creamery wasn’t trying to hide anything? Once again, that really is a statist attitude.

See there? I cut the use of your name by 50%. A small improvement, but one none the less. As we continue to shout at each other, I shall try to continue to improve.

And, please, don’t Godwin yourself by invoking the Geheime Staats Polizei. That does quite a bit of damage to your argument.