[TacticalCoder]

Structuring though is one of the dumbest, laziest and most arbitrary law ever. If you say that the limit is, say, max 100 K USD for something but plan to attack for structuring the person who did 5 times 100 K USD, then simply make the law clearer: make the law say 100 K USD max and, say, max 200 K USD over five years. But don't come after people who did respect the numbers written in the law for "structuring".

It's another crazy concept of overreaching states and IRSes enjoying way too much power. They can arbitrarily decided what's structuring and what is not. Arbitrary decisions aren't how a democracy should work.

You want to prevent people doing these kind of transfers? Make it clear what the limits are. Don't come after people doing precisely what the limit allows several times: precise it can only be done once or x times over a certain time period.

That's by the way, how some laws do work. For example in France you're allowed to give your kids up to 150 K EUR of real estate (or something), tax and inheritance tax free, once every 15 years. After 15 years you're free to do it once again.

But putting limits and then attacking people respecting the limits? To me it's the sign of something deeply rotten in the state and that such laws exists isn't something that should be cheered.

[jdmichal]

Your real estate example is not a great fit, because real estate transfers are not common. That particular tax-free status on the transfers would probably be best interpreted as a carve out or loophole, with the normal status being that the transactions should be taxed.

On the other hand, depositing money is the normal status. Depositing what amounts to large sums over arbitrary periods of time is also normal. Directly to the point, the limit in place is not a restriction, but merely one that triggers mandatory reporting. The limit is very clear and absolute -- though at their discretion banks may report smaller transactions. Structuring is specifically about avoiding that limit and the accompanying questions and reporting.

So how would you rewrite this law to require mandatory reporting, but also not allow structuring? Because it's not apparently trivial how to achieve that goal any better than they did.

[hakfoo]

Is mandatory reporting a good idea, though?

I feel like the signal-to-noise ratio must be terrible, especially as inflation gradually lowers the meaning of a $10,000 reporting limit. Selling a used car is enough to trigger a reportable amount of cash.

I'd think what we need is less magic numbers, and instead a better training/reporting ecosystem that insulates people with good intentions but gives them the right tools to identify criminal behaviour.

Actually expecting banks to know their customers at a personal level should be the goal.

I suspect, in contrast, everyone involved likes a fixed 10k limit because it provides a convenient liability hand-off. Compliance can be automated on a much greater level and they can say "we filled out the appropriate forms when required, how were we supposed to know that Hamas Cupcakes Inc was a front?"

[jdmichal]

Agreed on the last bit. Having a clear-cut line where "this must be reported" is I think necessary for liability reasons. There are definitely other transactions that should be reported, in the spirit of the actual AML (anti money laundering) issue. But I think it's necessary to be able to say, in a legal setting, that the required obligation was met and discharged, even if something happened that probably should have been caught.

[rev_d]

The government is well-aware of how inflation erodes reporting thresholds. If you look at the obligation to report non-US bank accounts to FinCEN, they've indexed the penalties ($10,000 per line item) to inflation but not the $10,000 aggregate reporting threshold.

[vlovich123]

So boiling the frog so that eventually all transactions must be reported?

[dmatech]

I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. It's basically a law that bans attempts to comply with the letter of another law without complying with its spirit. Complying with any law should be completely straightforward.

[300bps]

I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring.

So there are two possibilities.

1. You think the government shouldn't be allowed to track money laundering

2. You have a suggestion on improving money laundering tracking without anti-structuring laws

If you believe the government has a legitimate vested interest in stopping money laundering and you set a $10,000 limit before something must be reported, the reporting requirement might as well not exist if someone can deposit $9999.99 literally 100 times per day without a report being generated.

So what would your suggestion be on how to track money laundering? Or do you just think that's none of the government's business?

[jimmydorry]

The answer isn't to then set the $10,000 limit and add an opaque criteria of "but the limit doesn't matter if we look at your transactions and think you are hiding something".

Something more reasonable may be: a limit of $10,000 per month (or any time frame) before mandatory reporting. That of course means dropping the hand wavy exception completely.

[pyuser583]

Requiring actual criminal proceeds. Simply wanting to avoid government attention should not be illegal. Covering up a crime should be.