Opinion ID: 673449
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Structuring Instruction

Text: 44 Bencs was charged with structuring financial transactions to avoid the reporting requirements applicable to cash transactions in excess of $10,000, in violation of 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5322. In Ratzlaf v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994), decided after this case was tried, the Supreme Court held that the government must prove that a defendant charged with a structuring offense acted with knowledge that the structuring he undertook was unlawful, not simply that the defendant's purpose was to circumvent a bank's reporting obligation. Bencs requested a jury instruction containing both elements, but the court instructed the jury that the government need not prove, however, that the Defendant knew that structuring a transaction as alleged was against the law. The record does not reflect that Bencs objected to this instruction. Nonetheless, in light of Ratzlaf, we conclude that the district court's jury instruction constitutes plain error. United States v. Olano, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We therefore reverse Bencs' convictions on counts 16 and 17, and remand for a new trial as to those counts. 10