Bank Secrecy Act
United States v. Zayas
Date: June 25, 2025
Issue: Whether the Eleventh Circuit should overturn Matthew Zayas’s conviction under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1) because the government’s evidence was insufficient and the government improperly broadened the indictment.
Case Summary: A unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel affirmed Matthew Zayas’ conviction under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for knowingly and willfully causing Wells Fargo not to file a currency transaction report (CTR).
The Bank Secrecy Act requires domestic banks to file a CTR for any cash withdrawal — or series of withdrawals — over $10,000 in a business day, counting all same-day transactions by the same customer across branches. One provision (31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1)) makes it unlawful to knowingly cause a bank to fail to file a required report. A separate provision (31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3)) outlaws “structuring,” or deliberately arranging multiple transactions below the threshold to evade the reporting duty. The first punishes actual failures to file; the second targets efforts to prevent the duty from arising.
In December 2018, Zayas impersonated an elderly woman’s grandson and persuaded her to wire $25,000 to his Wells Fargo account. Hours later, Zayas withdrew $8,000, $8,100, and $8,500 in cash from three separate Wells Fargo branches within 24 hours. While each of Zayas’ transactions remained below the $10,000 threshold, the Wells Fargo internal compliance system flagged and aggregated the same-day transactions, triggering the bank’s obligation to file a CTR.
A federal grand jury issued a four-count indictment: three counts of money laundering and one count of causing a bank to fail to file a required CTR under Section 5324(a)(1). After a five-day trial, the jury found him not guilty of money laundering, but guilty of the reporting violation. He asked the court to enter a judgment of acquittal or grant a new trial, claiming the focus on “structuring” expanded the indictment to an uncharged crime, the evidence did not prove a reporting duty or intent to evade it, and the court gave an improper answer to a jury question about “reasoning and common sense.” The district court rejected his request, and Zayas appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, ruling the government did not constructively amend the indictment against him. Even though the government and witnesses used the term “structuring” from Section 5324 (a)(3), their language did not improperly broaden the indictment, according to the panel. It explained subsection (a)(1) covers conduct that prevents a required CTR from being filed, while subsection (a)(3) targets efforts that prevent a bank’s duty to file a CTR from being triggered in the first place. In the panel’s view, the jury instructions accurately set forth the elements of subsection (a)(1) — duty to file, knowing the act causing non-filing, and intent to evade — and never required proof of structuring as a standalone crime.
The panel also concluded the government’s evidence was sufficient to show that Wells Fargo had a duty to file a CTR, and that Zayas intended for Wells Fargo to evade that duty. The panel explained that the aggregation of Zaya’s same-day withdrawals from different branches met the threshold for mandatory reporting. The evidence showed that bank employees processed the transactions using his driver’s license and debit card, confirming his identity. The timing and pattern of withdrawals allowed the panel to infer intent to evade federal reporting requirements. The panel emphasized that such intent may be proven through circumstantial evidence.
Bottom Line: The Eleventh Circuit rejected the individual’s “structuring defense” and upheld his conviction for causing a bank’s failure to file a CTR under the BSA.
Documents: Opinion
