U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can seize cash if they suspect it was structured to avoid reporting requirements. Structuring occurs when someone divides more than $10,000 into smaller amounts — or takes other deliberate steps — to avoid filing a currency report under 31 USC 5316. Even transporting less than $10,000 can be illegal if the intent is to evade the reporting requirement.
What Is Structuring?
Under 31 USC 5324(c)(3) and 31 CFR 1010.314, it is illegal to structure or assist in structuring the transport of currency or monetary instruments to evade the requirement to file a FinCEN Form 105. The law focuses on intent — if someone arranges the transportation of currency in a way that is designed to avoid triggering the $10,000 reporting threshold, that is structuring regardless of whether the money is legal.
The most common form of structuring involves dividing cash between two or more travelers so that no single person carries more than $10,000. But structuring can also include splitting cash between trips, dividing it between a carry-on and a mailed package, or converting some cash into monetary instruments (like traveler’s checks or money orders) to bring the cash amount below the threshold.
Structuring vs. Bulk Cash Smuggling
Structuring and bulk cash smuggling are closely related — both involve attempts to bypass the FinCEN 105 filing requirement. The key difference is method. Smuggling involves concealing cash (hiding it in luggage, clothing, or vehicles). Structuring involves dividing cash to keep individual amounts below the reporting threshold. A single seizure can involve allegations of both violations, and the penalties for each are severe.
Why Do People Structure Currency?
Many travelers mistakenly believe they can avoid the reporting requirement by splitting cash into smaller amounts. Some do it because they have heard horror stories about cash seizures and want to avoid delays or confrontations at the airport. Others do not fully understand how the reporting requirement works and assume that as long as no single person carries more than $10,000, no report is needed.
Regardless of the motivation, the law treats any intentional effort to keep currency amounts below the $10,000 threshold as structuring — even if the money is entirely legal and the traveler has no connection to criminal activity.
Examples of Structuring
Structuring can take many forms. Some common scenarios include:
- A couple traveling to India splits $18,000 — $9,000 in cash and $9,000 in traveler’s checks — so that neither person carries more than $10,000 in a single form. This is structuring.
- A solo traveler from China decides to carry $9,990 instead of $10,500 specifically to stay below the reporting threshold. If asked by CBP why they chose that amount and they say “to avoid reporting,” that admission alone can support a structuring charge.
- A family traveling together distributes $30,000 among three family members, each carrying $10,000 or less, with the understanding that they are avoiding the need to file a report.
- A traveler mails $8,000 via FedEx and carries $8,000 in cash on the same trip to avoid declaring the full $16,000.
Even if the traveler is unaware that structuring is illegal, admitting the intent to avoid reporting can lead to seizure of the entire amount and potential criminal charges.
Penalties for Structuring
Civil penalties include forfeiture of the money and fines up to the amount involved. CBP often seizes 50–100% of the structured amount. Travelers may also face increased scrutiny during future international travel, loss of trusted traveler privileges like Global Entry, and flags in Homeland Security databases that can trigger secondary inspections for years.
Criminal penalties can include fines and up to 5 years in prison. If the structured amount exceeds $100,000 in a 12-month period, the penalties may double under the aggravated structuring provisions of 31 USC 5324. Criminal prosecution is less common than civil forfeiture, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office may pursue charges if there are aggravating factors such as ties to other criminal activity, prior violations, or very large amounts.
In practice, Customs has unpublished mitigation guidelines that determine how much money can be returned in structuring cases. These guidelines are less favorable than those for simple failure to report violations — in many structuring cases, the standard mitigation allows for the return of only about 50% of the seized amount. An experienced attorney familiar with these guidelines can often negotiate a better outcome.
How Structuring Cases Differ from Failure to Report
The distinction between structuring and a simple failure to report matters significantly when it comes to how much money you can expect to recover. In a failure to report case, CBP’s mitigation guidelines generally allow for the return of most of the seized funds if you can demonstrate a legitimate source and intended use. In a structuring case, the guidelines are harsher because CBP views structuring as a deliberate attempt to evade the law — not just an oversight or mistake.
This is why the initial characterization of your case matters. If CBP has labeled your seizure as a structuring violation, it is critical to work with an attorney who understands the difference and can present evidence to challenge that characterization when appropriate.
Possible Defenses
Because structuring requires intent to evade the reporting requirement, there are defenses available when that intent is absent:
- No intent to evade reporting: If cash was divided for practical reasons (safety, convenience, or because different family members were paying for different expenses) rather than to avoid filing FinCEN 105, the intent element may not be satisfied
- No knowledge of the reporting requirement: While this does not excuse the failure to report, it undermines the argument that the structuring was intentional — you cannot intend to evade a requirement you do not know exists
- Innocent explanation for the amounts: If each traveler was carrying their own money for their own purposes, rather than dividing a single pool of cash, the structuring allegation may not hold
- Legitimate source and intended use: Demonstrating that the funds came from lawful sources and were intended for lawful purposes strengthens your case in both the civil forfeiture and criminal contexts
Statute of Limitations
- Criminal charges: 5 years from the date of the violation
- Civil penalties: 6 years from the date of the violation
- Collection of assessed penalties: 2 additional years from the date of assessment or final judgment
If the U.S. Attorney’s Office declines prosecution within the 5-year criminal window, charges are unlikely unless significant new evidence surfaces. The civil forfeiture process, however, operates independently.
Our Approach to Structuring Cases
Structuring cases require a different strategy than simple failure to report cases. The key is demonstrating that the way cash was divided had an innocent explanation — or, when structuring did occur, presenting the strongest possible evidence of legitimate source and use to maximize the amount returned under CBP’s mitigation guidelines.
We have handled hundreds of currency seizure cases, including many involving structuring allegations, and we have access to CBP’s unpublished mitigation guidelines. We know what Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures officers are looking for and how to present your case for the best possible outcome.
If your cash has been seized for alleged structuring, contact us immediately. Federal deadlines are strict, and early action can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.
Related Violations
Structuring often overlaps with other currency reporting violations. A single seizure can involve allegations of multiple offenses, each with its own penalty structure:
- Bulk Cash Smuggling (31 USC 5332) — concealing currency to avoid detection and reporting
- Failure to Report (31 USC 5316) — not filing FinCEN Form 105 when carrying more than $10,000 internationally