Key Takeaways: Structuring charges in Illinois and under federal law can apply even when funds are completely legal. The crime targets intentional evasion of currency reporting requirements, not the source of money. Both federal law (31 U.S.C. § 5324) and Illinois law (205 ILCS 685/7) make it a felony to deliberately break transactions into smaller amounts to avoid triggering Currency Transaction Reports. Prosecutors must prove the defendant acted for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements and intentionally structured transactions to do so; they need not prove the defendant knew structuring itself was illegal, but because the government must prove the ‘purpose of evading’ element it must show the defendant had some awareness of the reporting obligation. Penalties include up to five years per count federally and three to seven years under Illinois state law, with possible charges in both systems for the same conduct.
Most people assume that if their money is clean, they have nothing to worry about. That assumption is wrong when it comes to federal and Illinois structuring laws. Under both 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and the Illinois Currency Reporting Act (205 ILCS 685/7), structuring does not require that funds come from illegal activity. The offense targets deliberate evasion of currency reporting requirements, not the cash source. A business owner depositing legitimate revenue, a landlord banking rental income, or anyone handling lawful funds can face felony charges if they intentionally break transactions into smaller amounts to avoid triggering a Currency Transaction Report (CTR).
If you need to speak with a federal financial crimes attorney in Chicago about a structuring investigation, contact Glozman Law at (312) 726-9015 or reach out online to discuss your situation.
Structuring is the act of organizing financial transactions to evade reporting requirements. A common example is splitting a $12,000 deposit into three $4,000 deposits across different days or institutions to stay below the $10,000 CTR threshold. Financial institutions must report every currency transaction exceeding $10,000 to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) under the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5313). Illinois law under 205 ILCS 685/4(a) requires financial institutions to file currency transaction reports with the Illinois State Police, while 205 ILCS 685/4(b) generally deems a financial institution that complies with the federal Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act to be in compliance with Illinois reporting requirements, meaning federal CTR compliance will satisfy the state obligation rather than requiring duplicative reporting to the Illinois State Police.
Under 31 U.S.C. § 5324, federal law criminalizes three categories of structuring: transactions involving domestic financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, and casinos; transactions involving nonfinancial trades or businesses receiving cash payments over $10,000; and cross-border transportation of currency or monetary instruments of $10,000 or more. Illinois law under 205 ILCS 685/7 defines structuring broadly to include conducting one or more transactions in currency, cashier’s checks, money orders, or traveler’s checks, at one or more institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, if the purpose is to evade reporting.
Illinois law also imposes a separate recordkeeping requirement at the $3,000 level for monetary instruments. Under 205 ILCS 685/5(a), financial institutions must verify and record the identity of any individual purchasing cashier’s checks, traveler’s checks, or money orders in amounts of $3,000 or more using cash. Individuals who structure purchases to stay below $3,000 may still face structuring charges under both state and federal law.
Pro Tip: The $10,000 threshold gets most attention, but structuring charges can also arise from patterns designed to evade the $3,000 monetary instrument reporting requirement.
The fact that money is legally obtained is not a defense to a structuring charge. The government does not need to prove that cash came from drug sales, fraud, or any other crime. The offense is the intentional evasion of the reporting requirement itself. Congressional Research Service analysis confirms that funds being neither derived from nor intended for criminal activity may be relevant for sentencing but does not defeat the underlying charge.
A Chicago case illustrates this point clearly. Antuane King was convicted of structuring nearly $350,000 in cash deposits to evade federal reporting requirements. He made at least 37 deposits of less than $10,000 each at seven financial institutions, then combined the money to purchase three residential properties. The funds went toward legitimate real estate purchases. That did not matter. A federal jury convicted him on two counts of structuring, each carrying up to five years in federal prison.
Pro Tip: Do not assume that having a legitimate explanation for your cash protects you from structuring charges. Prosecutors focus on the pattern of deposits and whether the pattern demonstrates intent to evade reporting.
To secure a conviction, prosecutors must establish that the defendant acted for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements and structured transactions to do so. Following the 1994 amendment to § 5324 (the ‘Ratzlaf fix’), Congress eliminated the statutory ‘willfulness’ requirement entirely. The government no longer needs to prove that the defendant knew structuring was illegal; it only needs to prove that the defendant acted for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements. Because that ‘purpose of evading’ element remains, the government must still establish that the defendant had some awareness of the reporting obligation in order to have formed the intent to evade it. This intent element is where many federal structuring cases are contested. The government typically builds its case through deposit records, bank surveillance, witness testimony from tellers, and patterns showing deposits just under reporting thresholds at multiple institutions or consecutive days.
Defense strategy in structuring cases often centers on challenging the government’s evidence of knowledge and intent. Did the defendant actually know about the $10,000 reporting threshold? Was there a legitimate, non-evasive reason for the transaction pattern? A structuring defense attorney in Chicago will evaluate the government’s evidence of intent, the strength of the transaction pattern, and whether constitutional challenges to the investigation are viable.
Pro Tip: If you have been contacted by federal agents about your banking activity, do not attempt to explain your transaction history before consulting counsel. Statements made during investigation can significantly affect both charging decisions and trial strategy.
Chicago residents and business owners face a legal landscape where both state and federal structuring charges can arise from the same transactions. Under 205 ILCS 685/4(b), a financial institution compliant with the federal Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act is deemed compliant with Illinois reporting requirements. This alignment means the same conduct triggering federal attention under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 can also support Illinois charges under 205 ILCS 685/7. The dual sovereign doctrine permits separate state and federal prosecutions without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, though simultaneous prosecutions are uncommon.
The penalties are serious at each level.
| Federal (31 U.S.C. § 5324) | Illinois (205 ILCS 685/7) | |
|---|---|---|
| Classification | Federal felony | Class 2 felony |
| Base imprisonment | Up to 5 years per count | 3 to 7 years |
| Enhanced penalties | Up to 10 years if committed while violating another federal law or as part of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period | Potential money laundering escalation via Statewide Grand Jury (725 ILCS 215/2) |
Illinois also created a Statewide Grand Jury with authority to investigate and prosecute money laundering offenses across multiple counties. Under 725 ILCS 215/2(a), structuring-related money laundering charges are not limited to Cook County and can be escalated to statewide proceedings, increasing prosecutorial resources and jurisdictional reach.
Pro Tip: Dual state and federal exposure does not mean you will necessarily face charges in both systems. But the possibility shapes how defense counsel should approach negotiations, particularly when a resolution in one jurisdiction may influence or preclude action in another.
Currency exchanges, common in Chicago neighborhoods, are subject to state and federal anti-money laundering requirements, though they are regulated as money services businesses under rules that differ from banks. Under 205 ILCS 405/4.1B(a), every licensed currency exchange must comply with all state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to the detection and prevention of money laundering. Separately, 205 ILCS 405/4.1B(b) requires every licensed currency exchange to maintain an anti-money laundering program (referencing the federal MSB AML program rule). Structured cash transactions attempted through these businesses carry similar structuring exposure as those at banks and credit unions.
Some individuals assume currency exchanges operate with less oversight than banks. They are not. These licensed businesses file many of the same reports, maintain similar records, and generate comparable alerts. Attempting to use multiple currency exchanges to avoid detection can strengthen the government’s case by demonstrating knowledge of the reporting system and deliberate efforts to circumvent it.
Pro Tip: The type of financial institution you use does not reduce legal exposure. Currency exchanges, credit unions, casinos, and banks all operate under overlapping federal and state reporting frameworks.
1. Can I be charged with structuring if I deposit my own legally earned money?
Yes. Both federal law under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and Illinois law under 205 ILCS 685/7 prohibit structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements regardless of whether funds are legally obtained. The offense is the intentional evasion of the report, not the source of money.
2. What is the difference between a Currency Transaction Report and a Suspicious Activity Report?
A CTR is an automatic report filed by financial institutions for currency transactions over $10,000. A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is filed when a financial institution detects unusual activity, including patterns suggesting structuring. SARs can be filed for transactions of any size, and you will not be notified when one is filed.
3. Can I face both federal and Illinois state charges for the same structuring conduct?
Yes. Because Illinois law aligns its reporting framework with the federal Bank Secrecy Act, the same transactions can support charges under both 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and 205 ILCS 685/7. The dual sovereign doctrine generally permits this, though whether prosecutors pursue charges in both systems depends on the facts and agencies involved.
4. What does the government need to prove to convict someone of structuring?
The government must prove that the defendant acted for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements and structured transactions to do so. The government does not need to prove the defendant knew structuring was a crime, but because it must show the defendant acted for the purpose of evading reporting requirements it must prove the defendant had some awareness of the reporting obligation.
5. What kind of prison time can structuring charges carry?
Federal structuring convictions carry up to five years per count, increasing to up to ten years if committed while violating another federal law or as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period. Under Illinois law, structuring is a Class 2 felony carrying three to seven years of potential imprisonment.
Structuring cases are built on patterns, and the defense must address those patterns with precision. Every case involves different facts: different transaction histories, different relationships with financial institutions, different levels of knowledge about reporting requirements, and different circumstances driving the conduct. The strength of the government’s evidence, the viability of constitutional challenges, and the client’s broader legal exposure all shape how a defense should be constructed.
If you are under investigation or have been charged with structuring in Chicago, Glozman Law can evaluate your situation and explain your realistic options. Call (312) 726-9015 or contact us directly to start that conversation.