Opinion ID: 2968343
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the term illegal money transmitting busi-

Text: ness means a money transmitting business which affects interstate or foreign commerce in any manner or degree and— (A) is intentionally operated without an appropriate money transmitting license in a State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony under State law; or (B) fails to comply with the money trans- mitting business registration requirements under section 5330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed under such section . . . . UNITED STATES v. TALEBNEJAD 5 18 U.S.C.A. § 1960, historical & statutory notes (West Supp. 2006) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). On October 26, 2001, Congress amended the statute to provide, in relevant part, as follows: (a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) As used in this section— (1) the term unlicensed money transmitting business means a money transmitting business which affects interstate or foreign commerce in any manner or degree and— (A) is operated without an appropriate money transmitting license in a State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony under State law, whether or not the defendant knew that the operation was required to be licensed or that the operation was so pun- ishable; [or] (B) fails to comply with the money trans- mitting business registration requirements under section 5330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed under such section . . . . 18 U.S.C.A. § 1960 (emphasis added). The purpose of the amendment was to eliminate a potentially available affirmative defense that the defendant was unaware of applicable state licensing requirements. See H.R. Rep. No. 107-250, pt. I, at 54 (2001) (explaining that the amendment clarifies the scienter requirement in § 1960 to avoid the problems that occurred when the Supreme Court interpreted the currency transaction reporting statutes to require proof that the defendant knew that structuring a cash transaction to avoid the reporting requirements 6 UNITED STATES v. TALEBNEJAD had been made a criminal offense. See Ratzlaf v. United States, [510 U.S. 135,] 114 S. Ct. 655 (1994). The proposal makes clear that an offense under § 1960 is a general intent crime for which a defendant is liable if he knowingly operates an unlicensed money transmitting business.).