[cgmg]

So, guilty until proven innocent?

[ajross]

That's moving the goalposts. The point upthread was that splitting a single deposit made you "a criminal guilty of structuring".

But yeah, sorta: if you are repeatedly splitting such deposits in exactly the way needed to avoid reporting and scrutiny, and don't have a valid non-structuring explanation, those facts are going to go a long way toward proving intent in the minds of a jury. Would you seriously argue otherwise?

[valuearb]

Maybe I structure my deposits because I don’t feel safe carrying $10,000+ to the bank. So five times a week I’m depositing $5k in the bank, until the DA seizes my businesses working capital to put me out of business and you on the jury vote to convict me because my behavior was “repeated”?

[wmf]

Basically yes, the financial system is moving towards more of a whitelisting approach when it comes to cash.

[ncallaway]

In a criminal context the burden of proof would rest on the prosecution to prove a nefarious purpose.

This is because—as in all criminal cases—we presume innocence and put the burden of proof on the prosecutor.

[valuearb]

This isn’t true when the prosecution can bankrupt the defendant by seizing their businesses working capital even before the trial.

[paulie_a]

It isn't binary.