Structuring is a standalone federal crime that does not require the government to prove your money was dirty. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5324, it is illegal to break up financial transactions into smaller amounts to evade mandatory reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Many people in Chicago and across Illinois first learn about structuring charges only after their bank accounts have been frozen or assets seized. The act of structuring itself, not the origin of the funds, is what federal prosecutors target. If you are a business owner, money services operator, or professional facing a federal investigation involving cash deposits, currency transaction reports (CTRs), or suspicious activity reports (SARs), understanding what the government must prove and where defenses exist is critical.
If you are under investigation or facing structuring charges in Illinois, Glozman Law can help you evaluate your situation. Call (312) 726-9015 or reach out online to discuss your case.
The federal anti-structuring statute was enacted by Congress in 1986 and is codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5324. The law targets breaking up transactions to stay below the $10,000 threshold that triggers a Currency Transaction Report filing. Banks and financial institutions must file CTRs for cash transactions in coin or paper money exceeding $10,000. This requirement does not apply to checks or electronic transactions.
Section 5324(a)(3) makes it illegal for any person to structure, assist in structuring, or attempt to structure any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions for the purpose of evading reporting requirements under 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a). The statute extends beyond bank deposits. Subsection (b) covers structuring transactions with nonfinancial trades or businesses to evade reporting requirements under § 5331, and subsection (c) prohibits structuring the importation or exportation of monetary instruments to evade § 5316 requirements.
The scope is broad. It covers purchases of bank checks, cashier’s checks, money orders, currency transported across borders, and anyone who assists in or attempts the structuring.
Pro Tip: The $10,000 CTR threshold applies only to cash (coin and paper currency). If your transactions involved checks, wire transfers, or electronic payments, the CTR requirement may not apply, and this distinction can be significant in a structuring defense.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of federal structuring crime in Illinois is that prosecutors do not need to show the underlying money was illegally obtained. The crime is the pattern of transactions itself, conducted with the purpose of avoiding BSA reporting. A business owner depositing legitimately earned cash in amounts just under $10,000 can face federal charges if the government establishes the deposits were structured to evade CTR filings.
This is where intent becomes the central issue. The statute requires proof that the person acted "for the purpose of evading" reporting requirements. Following a 1994 amendment, the government no longer needs to prove the defendant knew structuring itself was illegal, only that the defendant knew of the reporting requirement and deliberately structured transactions to avoid triggering it. Federal prosecutors typically rely on circumstantial evidence: frequency and amounts of deposits, proximity to the $10,000 threshold, statements to bank employees, and patterns deviating from normal business activity.
Financial institutions play a role in triggering investigations. When banks suspect deposit structuring, they must file Suspicious Activity Reports. Funds can be seized via warrant based on SARs even when every individual deposit falls below $10,000. Many clients first learn they are under investigation when their accounts are frozen.
Pro Tip: If a bank has filed a SAR related to your accounts, you will generally not be notified directly. The first sign is often an asset seizure or a visit from federal agents. Contacting a federal financial crimes attorney in Illinois early can help preserve your options before charges are filed.
The penalties under § 5324(d) are serious and escalate based on the circumstances.
| Violation Level | Maximum Imprisonment | Additional Penalties |
|---|---|---|
| Base structuring offense under § 5324(d)(1) | Up to 5 years | Fine in accordance with Title 18, or both |
| Structuring 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 § 5324(d)(2) | Up to 10 years | Fine of up to twice the amount under 18 U.S.C. § 3571, or both |
Beyond criminal penalties, the government frequently pursues civil asset forfeiture in structuring cases. Funds, accounts, and property can be seized and potentially forfeited even before a criminal conviction. Forfeiture proceedings operate under different legal standards than criminal cases and require a distinct defense strategy.
Pro Tip: Enhanced penalties under § 5324(d)(2) apply when structuring occurs alongside another federal offense or as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 within a 12-month period. If you face overlapping charges such as tax fraud or unlicensed money transmission, sentencing exposure increases substantially.
Every structuring case turns on its own facts, and cookie-cutter defense strategies do not work in this area of federal law.
The government must prove you knew about the reporting requirement and deliberately structured transactions to avoid it. This is not a strict liability offense. If evidence shows deposits were made for legitimate business reasons, or that you were unaware of the CTR threshold, that lack of intent can be a viable defense.
Federal prosecutors rely heavily on bank records, SAR filings, and testimony from bank employees. Defense counsel will examine the chain of custody of financial records, the accuracy of the bank’s internal reporting, and whether the SAR was filed based on actual suspicious conduct or merely a pattern that triggered an algorithm.
Not every structuring case goes to trial, and not every case should. Depending on the facts, realistic outcomes may include deferred prosecution agreements, plea agreements to reduced charges, or successful motions that weaken the government’s case. A money laundering lawyer in Chicago can help you understand what each path looks like in practice.
Pro Tip: If federal agents approach you about your banking activity, you are not required to answer questions without counsel present. Anything you say can be used to establish the intent element the government needs. Exercise your rights early.
Most structuring cases in the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois begin long before a defendant knows about them. IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) and the FBI are the primary agencies that investigate BSA violations. They often build cases over months or years by collecting bank records, reviewing SAR filings, and analyzing transaction patterns.
A common sequence looks like this:
Timing matters. The earlier defense counsel is involved, the more options are generally available. Pre-indictment intervention can sometimes change the trajectory of a case.
Choosing the right federal criminal defense attorney for cash deposit structuring charges affects every stage of your case. Federal financial crimes cases differ significantly from state prosecutions in procedure, evidence standards, and sentencing. The attorney you select should have direct experience handling BSA violation defense in federal court, familiarity with how IRS-CI and FBI build structuring cases, and the ability to evaluate both trial and negotiated resolution strategies.
Look for counsel who communicates realistic outcomes from the start. The difference between a 5-year and 10-year sentencing exposure under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 can hinge on whether the government can connect the structuring to another federal offense or a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period.
Pro Tip: When evaluating defense counsel, ask how they have handled the intent element in prior structuring cases. The purpose-of-evasion requirement under § 5324 is the most litigated issue in these prosecutions, and how your attorney approaches it will shape the entire defense.
Yes, you can be charged. The federal structuring statute under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 does not require the government to prove the funds were illegally obtained. The crime is structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, regardless of the source of the money.
A CTR is a mandatory report filed for any cash transaction over $10,000. A SAR is filed when a financial institution suspects a customer is engaging in suspicious activity, including structuring. CTR filings are routine and automatic. SARs are judgment-based and often trigger federal investigations.
The government must prove that you structured or assisted in structuring transactions with the purpose of evading BSA reporting requirements. Prosecutors need evidence that you knew about the reporting threshold and deliberately kept transactions below it. The government does not need to prove you knew that structuring itself was illegal.
Yes. Federal agents can obtain warrants to seize funds based on Suspicious Activity Reports and other evidence of structuring, even before formal charges are filed. Defending against pre-indictment asset seizures requires prompt legal action with strict deadlines.
Federal structuring investigations can span months or even years before charges are filed. IRS-CI and the FBI typically build cases by analyzing extensive bank records and transaction histories. The length depends on the complexity of the financial activity and the number of accounts involved.
Federal structuring cases carry real consequences, including imprisonment, fines, and the loss of seized assets. The government does not need to prove your money was dirty. It only needs to prove you structured transactions to avoid reporting. How you respond to an investigation or indictment, and who represents you, will shape the outcome.
If you are facing a federal investigation or charges related to structuring, CTR violations, or BSA compliance in Illinois, contact Glozman Law at (312) 726-9015 or schedule a consultation to discuss your situation directly.