Structuring
Sufficiency of evidence

Where a defendant moved $5 million dollars into bank accounts in one year, without ever depositing more than $10,000, the evidence is sufficient to support convictions for illegal structuring.

"The record contains sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Van Allen structured his business transactions with the intent of evading the reporting requirements. The evidence showed that Van Allen withdrew and deposited massive sums of money, all under $10,000, all allegedly in furtherance of his auto parts business, and all without reporting any business income on his tax return or bankruptcy petition. The sheer volume of the transactions almost compels the conclusion reached by the jury. See Cassano, 372 F.3d at 879 ('[I]t is unlikely, to the point of absurdity, that it was pure coincidence that all [of the fifty-one] checks cashed by [the defendant] were in denominations under $10,000.'). The jury rejected Van Allen's argument that the nature of the auto parts business required him to engage in the pattern of withdrawals and deposits of sub-$10,000 amounts. The jury most likely did so by considering the irrational and inefficient nature of the transactions; Van Allen paid almost $100,000 in check-cashing fees at one of the currency exchanges. The fact that Van Allen was willing to sacrifice efficiency and convenience and paying the exorbitant transaction fees by going to separate banks in the same day to make almost identical deposits supports the inference that he knew of and intended to avoid the reporting requirements. See United States v. MacPherson, 424 F.3d 183, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2005). Taken as a whole, the evidence supports Van Allen's conviction, and certainly does not add up to 'a manifest miscarriage of justice.'"

Affirmed.

07-1160 U.S. v. Van Allen

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coar, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text