Failure to File Currency Transaction Report - Federal Charges

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to give you the reality of federal Currency Transaction Report violations - not the sanitized version banks present, not the government fiction about protecting you, but the actual truth about what happens when the pattern of your deposits triggers federal prosecution.

There is something deeply unsettling about learning that depositing your own legal money in careful increments can send you to federal prison. The government does not care where the money came from. They do not care that you earned every dollar legally. They do not care that you were simply being cautious. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5324, the crime is not about dirty money. The crime is about the pattern of your deposits. And if that pattern suggests you were trying to avoid the $10,000 Currency Transaction Report threshold, you have committed a federal felony carrying up to five years in prison.

This is what the Speaker of the House discovered. Dennis Hastert - the man who helped write federal financial crime legislation - went to federal prison for structuring. Not for the underlying conduct. For the deposits. The same statute that put the third-highest-ranking official in American government behind bars applies to you the moment you make a series of cash deposits designed to stay below $10,000.

The $10,000 Line You Never Knew Could Destroy You

Heres the thing about the Bank Secrecy Act. It was passed in 1970 to combat money laundering and tax evasion. The theory was simple - if banks report every cash transaction over $10,000, the government can track illegal money moving through the financial system. A Currency Transaction Report gets filed with FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and investigators have a paper trail.

Most people never think about this threshold. They deposit their money, pay their taxes, and assume everything is fine. But the law creates a trap that ensnares the cautious and the criminal alike. And the government enforces it aggressively - FinCEN and IRS Criminal Investigation pursue structuring cases as a priority, not an afterthought.

The problem is what happens when your trying to be careful. Maybe you sell a car for $25,000 cash. Maybe you inherit money from a relative who didnt trust banks. Maybe you run a cash business - a restaurant, a food truck, a laundromat - and you deposit your earnings when you hit a certain amount. Whatever the reason, if you deposit that money in amounts just under $10,000, you have structured transactions to avoid reporting requirements. Thats a federal crime.

Look, I understand the instinct. Carrying large amounts of cash feels risky. You worry about theft, about loss, about attracting attention. Depositing smaller amounts feels prudent. It feels responsible. But the federal government sees it completly different. To them, breaking up deposits to stay below $10,000 is evidence of criminal intent - irrespective of whether your money came from drug trafficking or your grandmothers estate.

Why Your Bank is Already Building a Case Against You

Heres were it gets interesting. Your bank is not on your side. Every financial institution in America runs sophisticated software that flags suspicious patterns. And "suspicious" doesnt just mean deposits over $10,000. It means deposits that consistantly hover just below the threshold. It means any pattern that suggests structuring.

When your bank detects this pattern, they dont call you to discuss it. They file a Suspicious Activity Report - a SAR - directly with the federal government. You never know this happened. There is no notification requirement. The bank documenting your behavior becomes the foundation of a federal prosecution, and you wont learn about it until investigators show up or your accounts get frozen.

Todd Spodek has represented clients who discovered their bank had been filing SARs for months before any government contact. By the time the client knew something was wrong, the investigation was already advanced. The evidence was already compiled. The case was already being built.

This is the hidden surveilance system most people dont know exists. Banks dont just report transactions over $10,000. They activly monitor for any pattern that looks like your trying to avoid that threshold. And the algorithm doesnt distinguish between a drug cartel and a small business owner depositing daily cash receipts.

What makes this particuarly dangerous is the lag time. A bank might file SARs for six months before any investigation begins. By the time federal agents contact you, they already have half a year of documented patterns. They already have their narrative constructed. They already know exactly what questions to ask. Your first indication that something is wrong comes long after the case against you has taken shape.

What "Structuring" Actually Means Under Federal Law

Let that sink in for a moment. The crime of structuring under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 requires only that you conducted transactions in a manner designed to evade the CTR filing requirement. It does not require that your money be illegal. It does not require that you owe taxes. It does not require any victim whatsoever.

In 1994, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Ratzlaf v. United States that seemed to protect defendants. The Court held that prosecutors had to prove the defendant knew structuring was illegal - not just that they intended to avoid the reporting requirement. This was a reasonable interpretation. How can someone commit a crime they didnt know existed?

But heres the kicker. Congress responded within months by amending the statute to remove the willfulness requirement entirely. The "Ratzlaf fix" means prosecutors no longer need to prove you knew structuring was against the law. They only need to prove you intended to avoid the reporting threshold. The mere act of breaking up deposits demonstrates that intent.

OK so what does this mean practicaly? It means your defense is gutted before you even walk into the courtroom. "I didnt know it was illegal" is not a defense. "My money was legal" is not a defense. "I was just being careful" is not a defense. The pattern of your deposits is the crime, and the pattern is mathematicaly provable from your bank records.

When They Take Your Money Without Charging You

This is critical to understand: the government can take your money before they ever accuse you of a crime.

Civil asset forfeiture allows federal agencies to seize property they believe is connected to illegal activity. In structuring cases, the "illegal activity" is the pattern itself. They dont need to prove your money came from crime. They dont need to file charges against you. They can freeze your accounts based solely on the suspicion that you structured transactions.

A Washington Post investigation found that in 81% of equitable sharing cases - where federal agencies seize assets and share proceeds with state and local law enforcement - the property owners were never charged with any crime. Think about that. Four out of five people who lost money to civil forfeiture were never even accused of wrongdoing. They lost there money to the pattern.

For cash business owners, this is particulary devastating. Imagine running a successful restaurant for years, depositing your cash take when it reached $8,000 or $9,000 for saftey reasons. One day your bank account is frozen. No warning. No explanation. Just a notice that the IRS has seized your funds pending investigation. You cant make payroll. You cant pay suppliers. The business you built over decades collapses while the government takes its time deciding whether to charge you.

Heres the reality. Even if your never charged criminally, fighting civil forfeiture costs money you no longer have access to. Many people settle for getting back 50 or 60 percent of their own funds just to end the nightmare. The government effectivly keeps the rest without ever proving you did anything wrong.

The Speakers Fall: Why No One is Above This Law

Dennis Hastert served as Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007 - the longest-serving Republican Speaker in history. He helped craft federal financial crime legislation. He understood how the system worked. And he went to federal prison anyway.

Between 2012 and 2014, Hastert withdrew $952,000 in amounts designed to stay below the $10,000 reporting threshold. He made over 100 withdrawals. The pattern was unmistakable. When federal investigators noticed, they didnt care about his position, his contributions to American governance, or his decades of public service.

In October 2015, Hastert pleaded guilty to felony structuring. The judge called him a "serial child molester" - the underlying reason for the withdrawals was hush money payments - but the statute of limitations had long expired on that conduct. What they could prosecute was the structuring. What they could prove was the pattern.

Hastert was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison, two years supervised release, and a $250,000 fine. He reported to a federal medical facility in Minnesota in June 2016. One of the highest-ranking American politicians ever sentenced to prison went there for structuring - the same offense that applies to anyone who breaks up cash transactions.

If the Speaker of the House cant avoid these charges, what makes you think you can? The law doesnt care about your intentions. It cares about the pattern.

Some commentators have questioned whether structuring should even be a crime when no underlying illegal activity exists. Jacob Sullum of Reason argued that prosecuting structuring "provides the means for punishing actual criminals who would otherwise escape justice" - but that doesnt justify criminalizing the conduct itself. Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic wrote that "an American is ultimately being prosecuted for the crime of evading federal government surveillance." These debates continue in legal circles. But while scholars argue about what the law should be, prosecutors enforce what the law is.

The Penalties That Follow You Forever

Notice the pattern here. Federal structuring violations under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. But thats just the baseline.

If your structuring involves more then $100,000 in a twelve-month period, or if its connected to any other illegal activity, the maximum jumps to ten years. And it often is connected - prosecutors regularaly charge structuring alongside money laundering, tax evasion, or Bank Secrecy Act violations. Each charge stacks. Each charge carries its own penalties.

Beyond prison, consider whats permanantly lost. A federal felony conviction destroys professional licenses. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents - your career ends. Financial institutions wont bank with convicted felons. Employers wont hire you. Housing applications get denied. The conviction follows you for life.

And then theres asset forfeiture. Even if you serve your time and pay your fines, the government can pursue civil forfeiture separatly. The funds you structured - regardless of there legal origin - can be seized. Your house, your car, your business assets - anything prosecutors can connect to the structured transactions becomes fair game.

In December 2024, Frank Ahlgren became the first person convicted of criminal tax evasion centered on cryptocurrency. He was also charged with structuring cash deposits to avoid CTR requirements. His sentence: 24 months in federal prison, one year supervised release, and $1,095,031 in restitution. The structuring charges werent incidental - they were central to the prosecution.

How Federal Prosecutors Build Structuring Cases

See the problem? Structuring cases are among the easiest for federal prosecutors to prove. They dont need witnesses who might recant. They dont need physical evidence that might be challenged. They have your bank records. They have mathematics.

Banks are required to maintain records of all transactions for five years. FinCEN aggregates Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports from every financial institution in America. When investigators suspect structuring, they subpoena records and run the numbers. If you made multiple deposits just under $10,000 over any period, the pattern speaks for itself.

The jury instruction for structuring is straightforward. Prosecutors must prove three elements: (1) the defendant structured transactions to evade CTR requirements; (2) the defendant knew about the $10,000 threshold; and (3) the transactions involved a domestic financial institution. Thats it. No requirement to prove the money was illegal. No requirement to prove any victim.

At Spodek Law Group, we've seen how these cases unfold. The government gathers months or years of banking records. They create charts showing the pattern - deposits of $9,500, $9,800, $9,200, always hovering below the threshold. They present this to a jury as mathematical proof of intent. Without aggressive defense strategy, the numbers become an airtight conviction.

The methodology is remarkably consistant across cases. Prosecutors identify the pattern, calculate the total structured amount, and present the timeline visually. Juries see rows of transactions, all conveniently below the magic number. The inference is obvious: this person knew exactly what they were doing. Overcoming that inference requires experienced legal strategy - not protests of innocence, but documented evidence of legitimate business reasons for the deposit pattern.

In March 2025, Treasury issued new Geographic Targeting Orders through FinCEN requiring money service businesses in border counties to file CTRs on cash transactions as low as $200. The threshold can change without your awareness. The surveilance net is widening, not shrinking.

Fighting Back: What You Need to Know Right Now

Your window for effective action is smaller than you think.

If you suspect your being investigated for structuring - if your accounts have been frozen, if investigators have contacted you, if your bank has asked unusual questions - the time to act is now. Not tomorrow. Not after you "figure out whats happening." Now.

The strongest defense strategies attack the intent element. Yes, you made deposits under $10,000. But were those deposits designed to evade reporting, or were they the natural pattern of your business operations? A restaurant that deposits daily receipts isnt structuring - its operating. A contractor who deposits client payments as recieved isnt evading anything - theyre managing cashflow.

Context matters enormously, but only if someone presents it correctly. What was your normal deposit pattern before the period in question? What were the legitimate business reasons for your deposit schedule? Did you even know about the $10,000 threshold, and if so, how can we demonstrate that knowledge didnt translate to intent to evade?

Some defendants have successfuly argued that their deposit patterns reflected genuine safety concerns - depositing smaller amounts to avoid carrying large sums of cash that could be lost or stolen. Others have demonstrated that their business naturaly generated transactions in the flagged ranges. But these defenses require documentation, expert testimony, and aggressive presentation. They require a legal team that understands how federal prosecutors think and how juries respond to pattern evidence.

Heres what nobody tells you: the government has incentives to pursue structuring cases even when they wont win at trial. Civil forfeiture allows them to seize your assets without ever proving guilt. Many people cave simply because they cant afford to fight while there money is frozen. The system is designed to extract settlements, and it works.

Todd Spodek understands how federal prosecutors think about these cases. He knows what evidence they prioritize, what patterns they flag, and what defense strategies actualy work in the courtroom. The consultation you have today could determine whether this becomes a managable legal problem or a life-destroying conviction.

Every day you wait, the government continues building its case. Every day you wait, more evidence accumulates against you. Every day you wait, your options narrow. Federal prosecutors dont lose interest. They dont move on. They complete there investigations and then they indict.

The difference between conviction and acquittal often comes down to how early you engaged serious legal representation. The defendants who wait until indictment have already lost critical opportunities to shape the investigation, challenge evidence collection, and present alternative explanations before charges are filed.

At Spodek Law Group, we handle federal financial crime cases throughout the country. We understand the Bank Secrecy Act, structuring statutes, and the civil forfeiture process. More importantly, we understand that your reading this because your life may be about to change dramaticaly - and we know what it takes to prevent that outcome.

The stakes could not be higher. Your freedom, your career, your financial future - everything hangs on the decisions you make in the next few weeks. Structuring prosecutions move quickly once charges are filed, and the government has usualy spent months building its case before you even know your under investigation.

Dont let the pattern of your deposits become the story of your destruction. Dont let federal prosecutors turn your caution into a conviction. Dont become another statistic in the government's enforcement numbers.

Call us at 212-300-5196. The government has been watching. Its time you started fighting back.