Three men boarded a ferry in San Juan bound for Santo Domingo. CBP officers selected the eldest, a 69-year-old, for examination and explained the currency reporting requirements to him. He said he was travelling alone and carrying less than $10,000.
He was not travelling alone. The two other passengers were his nephews. Examination of all three turned up $53,726 in unreported currency distributed through their clothing and carry-on bags. He then told officers the money was proceeds of his business in the Dominican Republic.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office approved criminal prosecution for all three.
That last fact is the one worth understanding, because it contradicts the single most common assumption people bring to these cases: that money which was lawfully earned cannot be criminal to carry.
Bulk Cash Smuggling Has No Source Element
Read 31 U.S.C. § 5332 and look for the part about where the money came from. It is not there.
The offence requires three things: more than $10,000 in currency or monetary instruments, knowing concealment of it, and an intent to evade the reporting requirement while transporting it across a U.S. border. Every element concerns the act of concealment. None concerns the origin of the funds.
Clean money, hidden to avoid a form, is a completed federal offence
A business owner carrying documented, taxed, lawfully earned revenue commits bulk cash smuggling if he conceals it to avoid filing FinCEN Form 105 and crosses the border with it. The government does not have to allege drug proceeds, money laundering, or any other underlying crime. The concealment is the crime, and the potential consequences include imprisonment and forfeiture of the money regardless of how it was earned.
This is why the reasoning that leads people here is so dangerous. It runs: the money is mine, I earned it legally, I can prove it, so the worst that happens if I do not declare it is a paperwork problem. The first three propositions can be entirely true and the conclusion still wrong.
Where Legitimate Source Does Matter
Source is not irrelevant. It is decisive in a different proceeding, and confusing the two is how people end up arguing the right facts in the wrong forum.
- Criminal case. Source is not an element and not a defence. It may influence a prosecutor’s charging decision or a sentencing argument, but it does not answer the allegation.
- Civil forfeiture. Where the government’s theory is that the money represents criminal proceeds, source is central and the government must connect the funds to an offence. Where the theory is simply concealment and failure to report, it does not have to.
- Administrative petition. Source is everything. CBP’s guidelines condition relief on the petitioner establishing a legitimate source and a legitimate intended use, with documentation. A petition for remission or mitigation lives or dies on exactly the evidence that does nothing for the criminal charge.
So the business owner in this case had the makings of a strong petition and no defence at all to the smuggling allegation. Both things were true simultaneously, and which one he should have been thinking about depended entirely on which proceeding he was in.
Saying You Are Travelling Alone Is Its Own Problem
The detail that did the most damage here was not the amount. It was the claim to be travelling alone.
Where people travel together as a family or group, CBP treats the combined amount they are carrying as the relevant figure. Denying the existence of travelling companions is an attempt to defeat that aggregation, and it is a different kind of statement from understating a number. A traveller can misjudge how much cash is in a bag. Nobody miscounts their own nephews.
Splitting funds across companions so that no individual crosses the threshold is structuring under 31 U.S.C. § 5324, a separate offence again. Concealing the group and distributing the money through three people’s clothing and carry-ons produced a record that supported every theory available at once.
One report covers the group
The correct approach for a family travelling together is a single report listing the full amount the group is carrying, filed before anyone is asked. There is no limit on the amount, no tax, and no fee. Everything that went wrong in this case was downstream of a form that takes a few minutes and costs nothing.
Relatives Prosecuted Together Are Not Automatically Aligned
All three men were referred for prosecution and remanded to Homeland Security Investigations. That is a common outcome when a group is stopped together, and it creates a complication families rarely anticipate.
The nephews’ strongest position may be that the money and the decisions were their uncle’s. His may be that everyone understood what was happening. Those accounts cannot both be advanced by the same lawyer, and one of the three is a U.S. citizen while the others are not, which means the collateral consequences of a conviction differ sharply between them. Each person’s exposure should be assessed before anyone offers a joint explanation to anyone.
What Follows
The criminal referral and the seizure of the money run on separate tracks with different standards. A charge that is declined, dismissed, or defeated does not return the currency; the civil side has to be defended on its own terms and within its own deadlines, which do not pause for the prosecution.
Where both are live, sequencing matters, because a submission documenting the source and intended use of the money is also a statement available to a prosecutor. Our page on why claimants should not call CBP after a currency seizure covers the post-seizure missteps, and our page on cash seized at the San Juan port of entry covers the local process. Outcomes depend heavily on the specific facts and the documentation available.
One small correction to CBP’s own language, which recurs across its releases. The requirement is triggered by transporting more than $10,000, not “$10,000 or higher.” A traveller carrying exactly $10,000.00 has no filing obligation.
Cash Seized and Charges Filed?
Where a criminal case and a forfeiture run at the same time, the money needs its own defence on its own deadline. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions
If my money was earned legally, can I still be charged with bulk cash smuggling?
Yes. The offence turns on concealing more than $10,000 with intent to evade the reporting requirement while crossing the border. The source of the money is not an element and not a defence.
Then why does everyone say to document where the money came from?
Because it decides the administrative case. CBP conditions relief on the petitioner establishing a legitimate source and intended use. The same evidence that is central to recovering the money does nothing to answer a criminal charge.
Does the $10,000 threshold apply to each traveller separately?
No. Where people travel together as a family or group, CBP looks at the combined amount. Dividing money among companions to keep each below the threshold can be treated as structuring, which is a separate violation.
Should relatives charged together share one attorney?
Not necessarily. Their accounts may conflict, particularly where one party made the decisions and the others carried the money, and citizenship differences change the collateral consequences. Each position should be assessed separately first.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it, or contacting Great Lakes Customs Law through this website, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Great Lakes Customs Law does not represent defendants in federal criminal proceedings; references to the criminal process here are general background. Laws, regulations, and CBP procedures change, and the outcome of any customs seizure or forfeiture matter depends heavily on its specific facts and circumstances. No result is guaranteed or implied. References to publicly reported arrests are descriptive only; an arrest or charge raises no inference of guilt. You should consult a licensed attorney about your particular situation before taking or refraining from any action.