Ratzlaf v. United States
510 U.S. 135 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a conviction for 'willfully violating' the federal anti-structuring statute, the government must prove that the defendant knew their conduct of structuring financial transactions to evade reporting requirements was unlawful.
Facts:
- Waldemar Ratzlaf incurred a gambling debt of $160,000 at the High Sierra Casino in Reno, Nevada.
- When Ratzlaf returned to pay the debt with $100,000 in cash, a casino official informed him that any cash transaction over $10,000 had to be reported to government authorities.
- The official also told Ratzlaf that banks were subject to the same reporting requirement for cash transactions exceeding $10,000.
- To avoid triggering these reporting requirements, Ratzlaf, with assistance from a casino employee, visited several different local banks.
- At these banks, he purchased multiple cashier's checks, each for an amount less than $10,000.
- Ratzlaf then delivered these structured cashier's checks to the casino to pay off a portion of his debt.
Procedural Posture:
- Waldemar Ratzlaf was charged in a U.S. District Court (trial court) with violating federal anti-structuring laws.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the government did not need to prove Ratzlaf knew that structuring was unlawful.
- The jury convicted Ratzlaf.
- Ratzlaf (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the jury instruction was erroneous, against the United States (appellee).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, agreeing that knowledge of illegality was not an element of the crime.
- Ratzlaf petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'willfully violating' in 31 U.S.C. § 5322(a) require the government to prove that a defendant knew that structuring currency transactions to evade reporting requirements was unlawful, in addition to proving the defendant knew of the reporting requirement and intended to evade it?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. A conviction for willfully violating the anti-structuring law requires proof that the defendant knew their conduct was unlawful. The statutory term 'willfully' in § 5322(a) must be given effect and not treated as mere surplusage. While 'willful' is a word of many meanings, its consistent interpretation across other provisions in the same subchapter of the Bank Secrecy Act requires proof of an intentional violation of a known legal duty. Currency structuring is not an inherently nefarious act, as individuals might engage in it for reasons they believe are innocent, such as enhancing privacy or avoiding the risk of an audit. Given the ambiguity and the fact that the underlying conduct is not obviously wrong, the rule of lenity requires interpreting the statute in favor of the defendant, demanding proof that he knew the structuring itself was illegal.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. A defendant's purpose to circumvent a bank's reporting obligation is sufficient to sustain a conviction for 'willfully violating' the anti-structuring statute. The general rule that ignorance of the law is no defense should apply. The term 'willfully' typically refers to consciousness of the act, not consciousness that the act is unlawful. The heightened 'willfulness' standard from complex tax statutes is an exception and should not be applied to this simple statutory scheme. By definition, a person who structures transactions to evade a known reporting requirement acts with a wrongful purpose, satisfying any bad purpose component of willfulness. The majority's decision reopens a loophole Congress intended to close and will make prosecution for structuring difficult or impossible in most cases.
Analysis:
This decision established a heightened mens rea requirement for the crime of structuring, creating an exception to the general principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It significantly increased the government's burden of proof in such cases, requiring evidence that the defendant specifically knew the act of structuring was illegal, not just that they intended to avoid the reporting requirements. While Congress later amended the statute in 1994 to effectively overrule this holding for future cases, Ratzlaf remains a seminal case in statutory interpretation, demonstrating how courts may require proof of knowledge of illegality for crimes involving conduct that is not inherently malicious.
Unlock the full brief for Ratzlaf v. United States