## Facts

- Gabriel Reguer received $59,800 in cash in 1986 from selling a counterfeit rare Passover Haggadah to a buyer.
- When Reguer attempted to deposit the cash, he was told that a single deposit of that size would be reported to the federal government via a Currency Transaction Report (CTR).
- Reguer then broke the cash into smaller deposits so no individual deposit would trigger CTR reporting.
- Reguer asserted he structured deposits to avoid the appearance of being a drug dealer.
- In 1988, after jury selection and the government’s opening in a mail-fraud case, Reguer pleaded guilty to an information charging him with willfully causing a bank to fail to file CTRs, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313, 5322(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
- During the proceedings, Reguer admitted structuring to avoid CTR reporting but maintained he did not know structuring was a crime.
- After the Supreme Court’s decision in *Ratzlaf v. United States* (requiring knowledge of illegality for “willful” structuring), Reguer moved pro se to vacate/expunge his conviction and recover fines and restitution.

## Issues

1. Whether *Ratzlaf*’s knowledge-of-illegality requirement for “willfully” applies to a conviction under 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313 and 5322(a) (causing a bank’s CTR non-filing) when the conduct is structuring.
2. Whether the plea record established a sufficient factual basis that Reguer knew his conduct was unlawful.
3. If the conviction could not stand, what remedy was proper.

## Decision

- The court granted Reguer’s application.
- The court held that *Ratzlaf*’s interpretation of “willfully” applies to § 5322(a) in this context, even though the information charged § 5313/§ 5322(a) rather than § 5324.
- The court found the record showed only intent to avoid CTR reporting, and it affirmatively reflected Reguer’s claim that he did not know structuring was illegal.
- The court vacated the guilty plea and conviction and directed the parties to appear to set the matter for trial.

## Legal Principles

- When the government prosecutes CTR-related conduct under 31 U.S.C. § 5322(a) and the conduct consists of structuring transactions to evade reporting, “willfully” requires proof that the defendant knew the structuring conduct was unlawful, not merely that the defendant intended to avoid a CTR.
- A guilty plea must rest on an adequate factual basis for each element; after *Ratzlaf*, a record establishing only avoidance of reporting (and not knowledge of illegality) is insufficient for “willfulness” in structuring-based CTR prosecutions.
- Where an intervening decision alters the required mens rea and the plea record cannot support that element, the proper remedy is vacatur of the plea and conviction and restoration of the case to the pre-plea posture for trial.

## Conclusion

The court vacated Reguer’s guilty plea and conviction because, under the post-*Ratzlaf* definition of “willfully” in § 5322(a), the plea record did not establish that he knew structuring deposits to avoid CTR reporting was illegal, and the case was set for trial.


United States v. Reguer, 901 F. Supp. 515 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)