Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 383.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

[09-11-00 13:24:46] PAGES PGT: OPIN

338

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Opinion of the Court

spondent’s violation was unrelated to any other illegal activi-
ties. The money was the proceeds of legal activity and was
to be used to repay a lawful debt. Whatever his other vices,
respondent does not ﬁt into the class of persons for whom
the statute was principally designed: He is not a money
launderer, a drug trafﬁcker, or a tax evader.13 See Brief
for United States 2–3. And under the Sentencing Guide-
lines, the maximum sentence that could have been imposed
on respondent was six months, while the maximum ﬁne
was $5,000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a (transcript of Dis-
trict Court sentencing hearing); United States Sentencing
Commission, Guidelines Manual § 5(e)1.2, Sentencing Table

“fable[s]” that respondent told one month, or six months, later. See post,
at 352. The Government indicted respondent under 18 U. S. C. § 1001 for
“lying,” but that separate count did not form the basis of the nonreporting
offense for which § 982(a)(1) orders forfeiture.

Further, the District Court’s ﬁnding that respondent’s lies stemmed
from a fear of the Government because of “cultural differences,” supra, at
326, does not mitigate the gravity of his offense. We reject the dissent’s
contention that this ﬁnding was a “patronizing excuse” that “demeans mil-
lions of law-abiding American immigrants by suggesting they cannot be
expected to be as truthful as every other citizen.” Post, at 353. We are
conﬁdent that the District Court concurred in the dissent’s incontrovert-
ible proposition that “[e]ach American, regardless of culture or ethnicity,
Ibid. The District Court did nothing whatso-
is equal before the law.”
ever to imply that “cultural differences” excuse lying, but rather made
this ﬁnding in the context of establishing that respondent’s willful failure
to report the currency was unrelated to any other crime––a ﬁnding highly
relevant to the determination of the gravity of respondent’s offense. The
dissent’s charge of ethnic paternalism on the part of the District Court
ﬁnds no support in the record, nor is there any indication that the District
Court’s factual ﬁnding that respondent “distrust[ed] . . . the Government,”
see supra, at 326, was clearly erroneous.

13 Nor, contrary to the dissent’s repeated assertion, see post, at 344, 346–
351, 354, 356, is respondent a “smuggl[er].” Respondent owed no customs
duties to the Government, and it was perfectly legal for him to possess
the $357,144 in cash and to remove it from the United States. His crime
was simply failing to report the wholly legal act of transporting his
currency.