Key Takeaways: Federal structuring charges under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 apply to anyone who deliberately breaks up cash transactions to avoid the $10,000 CTR reporting threshold, including business owners, corporate officers, money services operators, and individuals. Since 1994, the government need only prove you acted to evade reporting requirements, not that you knew structuring was illegal. Illinois currency exchanges face the same federal anti-money laundering obligations as banks, and state regulators can share examination findings with federal authorities. Conviction carries up to five years in federal prison, with enhanced penalties of up to ten years when structuring occurs while violating another federal law or as part of a pattern exceeding $100,000 in twelve months.
Federal structuring charges reach far beyond drug trafficking or organized crime. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5324, anyone who breaks up cash transactions to avoid the $10,000 Currency Transaction Report (CTR) requirement may face prosecution. That includes business owners, corporate officers, money services operators, and individuals handling significant cash through any qualifying financial institution in Chicago or Illinois. The government does not need to prove you knew structuring was illegal, only that you acted to evade the reporting threshold.
If you are facing a federal structuring investigation or related financial charges, Glozman Law can help you understand your options. Call (312) 726-9015 or reach out online to discuss your situation.
Structuring is deliberately breaking up cash deposits or withdrawals into amounts below $10,000 to prevent a bank or financial institution from filing a CTR. Banks must file a CTR with FinCEN for every cash transaction exceeding $10,000. When someone arranges transactions to stay below that threshold, the government treats it as an attempt to circumvent the Bank Secrecy Act.
Congress enacted 31 U.S.C. § 5324 on October 27, 1986, specifically to address drug money laundering through structured cash conversion schemes. The statute has expanded beyond drug cases. Today, structuring charges in Illinois frequently arise with tax violations, payroll fraud, and other financial offenses. Conviction can result in up to five years imprisonment, with enhanced penalties in aggravated cases.
Pro Tip: Structuring does not require illegal underlying cash. Even lawful funds, if deposited or withdrawn in a pattern designed to dodge CTR requirements, can form the basis of a federal charge.
One of the most consequential changes in structuring law occurred in 1994, when Congress lowered the intent threshold. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ratzlaf v. United States (1994) held the willfulness requirement meant the government had to prove the defendant knew structuring was unlawful. Congress responded through the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, eliminating the willfulness requirement from § 5324.
For any structuring offense after September 23, 1994, the government does not need to prove you knew structuring was a crime. It must only prove you acted to evade the CTR reporting requirements. Many people who face structuring charges genuinely did not know they were breaking the law. That lack of knowledge is not a defense.
The government builds intent cases through transaction patterns, bank records, and witness testimony. If your deposits or withdrawals cluster just below $10,000 over time, prosecutors will argue the pattern speaks for itself.
Pro Tip: If you have received a grand jury subpoena or learned your bank records have been requested, the investigation is likely well underway. Early engagement with defense counsel can shape your case before charges are filed.
Federal prosecutors regularly pursue structuring charges against individuals who control business finances. The First Circuit case United States v. Giang (No. 24-1829, 2026) illustrates this clearly. The defendant operated a staffing agency and withdrew over $3.7 million in cash from business accounts in increments frequently below the $10,000 threshold. The defendant was convicted of failing to collect or pay employment taxes, mail fraud, and related counts. The court held that structuring evidence was properly admitted as intrinsic to the charged offenses and relevant to intent.
This case demonstrates the pattern prosecutors seek: a person with control over cash operations making repeated sub-threshold transactions. If you run a Chicago business that handles significant cash, your transaction history is visible to federal investigators.
Illinois currency exchanges are regulated financial institutions subject to the same anti-money laundering obligations as banks. Under 205 ILCS 405, these businesses handle extensive check cashing and money order transactions. Someone who uses a Chicago currency exchange to break up cash transactions below reporting thresholds can face the same federal structuring charges as at a bank.
Every licensee must maintain an anti-money laundering program under 31 C.F.R. Chapter X, reviewing and updating it to ensure effectiveness. Customers whose transactions trigger AML red flags may be reported, potentially initiating a federal investigation.
Pro Tip: The type of financial institution does not matter for structuring purposes. Currency exchanges, check cashers, credit unions, and banks all qualify under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Both individuals and financial institutions can face prosecution for structuring-related conduct. Non-§ 5324 prosecutions may be brought under other provisions of Title 31. If you operate a money services business or hold a position responsible for compliance, you could face liability on multiple fronts.
Illinois law creates a regulatory framework that supports federal structuring investigations. Under 205 ILCS 405/4.1B, every licensee must comply with state and federal anti-money laundering laws, including federal currency transaction reporting and suspicious activity reporting requirements under 31 C.F.R. Chapter X.
Illinois banking regulators can share examination findings with federal authorities. Under 205 ILCS 5/48.3(a), reports of examination by the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation are confidential but can be disclosed to federal authorities. When state regulators uncover evidence suggesting structuring, that information can be shared with FinCEN, the IRS, or the DOJ.
| Who Can Be Charged | Common Fact Patterns | Typical Related Charges |
|---|---|---|
| Business owners/operators | Sub-threshold cash withdrawals for payroll or operations | Employment tax fraud, mail fraud |
| Corporate officers/accountants | Directing structured deposits across multiple accounts | Tax evasion, conspiracy |
| Money services operators | Processing structured transactions for customers | Unlicensed money transmission, BSA violations |
| Individuals using currency exchanges | Breaking up personal cash transactions below $10,000 | Money laundering, tax fraud |
Every structuring case turns on its own facts, and defense strategies vary. The government’s case typically rests on transaction records, bank surveillance, teller testimony, and financial pattern analysis. Challenging whether this evidence proves the required intent to evade reporting is central to most defenses.
Key considerations in evaluating a federal money laundering structuring defense include:
Pro Tip: Structuring evidence often appears as part of a broader financial investigation. If you face related charges such as tax fraud alongside structuring, the defense strategy must address how each count interacts.
Federal prosecutors rely heavily on banking records to establish the pattern element of structuring. In Giang, the court found structuring evidence admissible as intrinsic to the charged offenses. Courts may allow the government to present transaction histories even where structuring is a federal crime connected to other charges.
Pro Tip: If you suspect an investigation, preserving your own records and understanding what the government has access to can be critical. Financial institutions retain transaction data for years, and federal investigators often subpoena records long before a target becomes aware.
No. Since 1994, the government only needs to prove you acted to evade the $10,000 CTR reporting requirement. It does not need to prove you knew structuring was a crime. This change, enacted through the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, significantly broadened who can face prosecution under 31 U.S.C. § 5324.
Yes. Illinois currency exchanges are regulated financial institutions under 205 ILCS 405 and are subject to the same federal anti-money laundering reporting obligations as banks. Breaking up cash transactions at a currency exchange to stay below $10,000 can result in the same federal charges as at a traditional bank.
A structuring conviction under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 can result in up to five years in federal prison and fines under Title 18. Under enhanced penalty provisions, if structuring occurs while violating another federal law or as part of a pattern involving more than $100,000 in twelve months, the maximum term increases to ten years and fines may be doubled.
Yes. Structuring frequently appears alongside charges such as employment tax violations and mail fraud. Courts have allowed structuring evidence to be admitted as intrinsic to related charged offenses, meaning the government may use your transaction pattern to support convictions on other counts.
Under certain circumstances, yes. Reports of examination prepared by the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation under 205 ILCS 5/48.3(a) are confidential but can be disclosed to federal authorities under specific conditions. Evidence of potential structuring uncovered during a state examination can be shared with agencies like the IRS or DOJ.
Federal structuring cases in Illinois reach beyond traditional money laundering scenarios. Business owners, corporate officers, money services operators, and individuals who use currency exchanges can all fall within the government’s reach. The intent standard is lower than many expect, and Illinois state regulations create additional pathways for federal investigators. The defense must be built around the specific facts, the government’s evidence, and the client’s broader legal exposure.
If you are under investigation or have been charged with structuring or related federal financial crimes in Chicago, Glozman Law is prepared to evaluate your case and discuss realistic options. Call (312) 726-9015 or contact the firm directly to schedule a consultation.