Structuring currency imports and exports

The currency reporting requirement under 31 U.S.C. § 5316 is straightforward: any amount over $10,000 in currency or monetary instruments transported across a U.S. border must be reported to CBP by filing a FinCEN 105 form. But what about splitting that amount into smaller transactions — each under $10,000 — to avoid triggering the reporting requirement? That is structuring, and it is a separate federal crime.

Person counting currency — structuring cash transactions to avoid CBP reporting requirements

What Structuring Is — and Why It Is Illegal on Its Own

Structuring is prohibited by 31 U.S.C. § 5324(c)(3), which makes it illegal to break up a currency transport into smaller amounts specifically to avoid having to file the required report. The statute applies to both imports and exports of currency across U.S. borders.

Here is how it works in practice. Suppose someone wants to transport $25,000 from the United States to Brazil. Rather than declaring the full $25,000 and filing a FinCEN 105, they divide the money into three amounts — $9,000, $8,500, and $7,500 — and either carry the three amounts separately across the border on the same trip or transport them on different occasions. Each individual amount is under $10,000. Each trip, viewed in isolation, appears not to require a report. But if the intent behind the division is to avoid the reporting requirement, the entire transaction is an act of structuring — a federal violation — regardless of whether any individual amount crossed the threshold.

The Timing and Method Do Not Matter — Only the Intent

One of the most important aspects of the structuring statute is how broadly it applies. It does not matter how the money is divided or when the transactions occur:

Dividing the money among passengers on the same flight, in the same car, or on the same boat
Dividing the money and transporting it on different days, weeks, months, or even years apart
Using different individuals to carry separate amounts
Using different crossing points or ports of entry

All of these methods can constitute structuring if the underlying purpose — even one of the purposes — is to avoid filing the currency report. The statute does not require that avoiding the reporting requirement be the only reason for dividing the money. If it is one of the reasons, the violation is complete.

How Structuring Differs From Other Currency Violations

It is worth understanding how structuring under § 5324 relates to the other currency violations CBP enforces. A straightforward failure to report under § 5316 is committed when someone transports more than $10,000 without filing a FinCEN 105. Bulk cash smuggling under § 5332 is committed when someone knowingly conceals currency with intent to evade the reporting requirement. Structuring under § 5324 is committed when someone divides currency to keep individual amounts below the threshold.

The critical distinction with structuring is that it can be committed even when no single transaction exceeds $10,000. You can be convicted of structuring without ever triggering the reporting requirement in any individual transaction. That is what makes it a particularly trap-like violation — people who believe they are complying with the letter of the law by keeping each transaction under $10,000 may in fact be committing a separate federal crime.

Structuring also carries serious civil and criminal consequences. On the civil side, CBP can seize and forfeit the currency involved under 31 U.S.C. § 5317. On the criminal side, structuring carries penalties of up to five years in federal prison — or up to ten years if the structuring was done in connection with other criminal activity. These penalties apply regardless of whether the underlying money was legitimate.

What If the Division Was for a Legitimate Reason?

Dividing currency among travelers for reasons that have nothing to do with the reporting requirement is not structuring. If a family divides cash among its members for security reasons — so that not all the money is in one place — and the reporting requirement never crossed anyone’s mind, that is not a structuring violation. The key element is intent: the division must be done with the purpose of evading the reporting requirement.

The practical problem is proving it. If CBP seizes your currency on a structuring theory and you believe the division was for innocent reasons, you bear the burden of convincing CBP — and potentially a court — that your intent was not to avoid the FinCEN 105 requirement. That is a difficult argument to make when the circumstantial evidence points the other direction: multiple people carrying amounts just under $10,000, traveling together, to the same destination, with the same origin. The pattern looks like structuring even if the intent was innocent, and CBP will treat it that way until you prove otherwise.

Documentation of the legitimate reason for dividing the money — and evidence that no one involved was aware of or trying to avoid the reporting requirement — is essential to a successful petition for remission or mitigation in a structuring case. These cases are harder to win than straightforward failure-to-report cases precisely because the government has a stronger basis for inferring unlawful intent from the conduct itself.

CBP Treats Traveling Groups as a Single Reporting Unit

One related point worth emphasizing: CBP does not evaluate each traveler’s currency independently when they are traveling together. Members of the same family or traveling group are treated as a single reporting unit for purposes of the FinCEN 105 requirement. If a husband and wife are each carrying $8,000 — a combined $16,000 — they are required to file a report even though neither individual is carrying more than $10,000. Failure to do so is not just a potential structuring violation — it is a straightforward failure to report the combined amount, which exceeds the threshold.

This is one of the most common misconceptions we encounter. Travelers assume the $10,000 threshold applies per person. It does not. It applies to the total currency being transported by a traveling group, and all of it must be reported on a single FinCEN 105 filed by one member of the group on behalf of all of them.

Have You Had Cash Seized for Structuring?

Structuring cases are among the most complex currency seizure matters to defend because the government’s case rests on inference about intent rather than just the fact of a missing form. If CBP has alleged structuring in connection with your seizure, you need experienced customs counsel. Read our customs money seizure legal guide or watch the video series, and contact us for a free consultation. Call us at (734) 855-4999, send a text message, or reach us on WhatsApp. You can also contact us online.