Opinion ID: 478833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability for the Structured Transactions

Text: 18 Appellant is also liable for the transactions in which an agent of the Behars laundered money through commercial banks. 2 The indictment charges that on several occasions the runner bought multiple checks from different branches of the same bank on the same day. Individually these checks were for amounts of less than $10,000 but in aggregate exceeded that amount. The runner also used fictitious names for the remitter and the payee. Appellant concedes that all this was done to avoid having the bank file any CTRs. 19 It is well established in this Circuit that a bank customer is liable for disguising a transaction such that the bank is unaware of its duty to file a CTR. United States v. Giancola, 783 F.2d 1549, 1552-53 (11th Cir.1986); Puerto, 730 F.2d at 632-34; Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d at 1100. In fact, in Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d at 1096-1101, the court held that two bank customers could be convicted for concealment where they made simultaneous purchases of cashier's checks aggregating in excess of $10,000 at the same bank. In that case, the two used false names and disguised the fact that they were operating together. Because their subterfuge prevented the bank from being aware of a transaction it was required to report, they were liable under 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1001. Similarly, the subterfuge used by the runner here suffices to establish appellant's liability for both concealment and conspiracy. 20 Liability, however, depends on whether the bank was required to file a CTR, for, as previously mentioned, a bank customer is not liable merely for structuring his cash transactions so as to create transactions in which the filing of a CTR is not required. Denemark, 779 F.2d at 1561-64. The banks here were required to file CTRs. In Giancola, 783 F.2d at 1552-53, the court squarely held that the purchase of multiple cashier's checks in an aggregate amount of more than $10,000 from different branches of the same bank on the same day constitutes a single transaction in excess of $10,000. This holding derived from both Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d at 1098, and United States v. Thompson, 603 F.2d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir.1979), in which the court aggregated transactions at a single branch of a bank on a single day to find a single transaction in excess of $10,000. The court in Giancola read the definition of financial institution as treating all the branches of a bank as a single financial institution; therefore, transactions that occurred in the branches of a single bank could be aggregated into a single transaction. 3 Although the runner also bought cashier's checks at branches of different banks, the indictment is sufficient in that it sets forth at least some transactions in which the banks were required to file CTRs. Appellant is liable for deliberately causing the bank to fail to fulfill its reporting duty in those transactions. 21 We also reject appellant's contention that treating the multiple transactions in this case as a single transaction violates his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment requires that penal statutes be sufficiently definite so as to put persons of ordinary intelligence on notice as to what constitutes prohibited conduct. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). The law of this Circuit is clear that multiple transactions at different branches of the same bank constitute a single transaction. The law is also clear that using fraudulent means to conceal a transaction for which a bank must file a CTR is unlawful. In fact, the court in Giancola, 783 F.2d at 1553, rejected a similar Fifth Amendment challenge made by the defendant in that case. 22 Appellant points to the Secretary of the Treasury's recently proposed revisions for 31 C.F.R. Sec. 103.22 which make explicit a financial institution's obligation to file CTRs when multiple transactions in a single day exceed $10,000. These proposed revisions, appellant argues, prove that the current regulations provided inadequate notice that his conduct was unlawful. Although the revisions concern mostly transactions occurring at different financial institutions, they also require aggregating transactions that occur within a single financial institution. Whether these proposals would change the law in other circuits or expand liability in this Circuit we need not say, for their treatment of multiple transactions within a single financial institution complies with the existing law of this Circuit. Thus, appellant cannot complain of a lack of notice. On the contrary, appellant, who was aware of the reporting requirements imposed on financial institutions, was finagling, with the improper hope that the bank would fail to notice its duty. Anzalone, 766 F.2d at 684 (Aldrich, Senior J., concurring). 23 Accordingly, the opinion of the district court is AFFIRMED.