## Facts

- Robert B. Sperrazza was an anesthesiologist in Albany, Georgia, and a member of an anesthesiology practice operated with two other physicians.
- The practice outsourced billing and collections to Physicians Professional Management (PPM).
- PPM typically deposited patient payments, but Sperrazza instructed PPM to mail him, each week, checks received from his patients.
- Over an extended period, Sperrazza repeatedly handled the checks and cash in amounts just below the $10,000 threshold that triggers a bank’s Currency Transaction Report (CTR) obligation.
- Evidence showed that, about every ten days, he often cashed “20 to 50 checks” with totals between $9,000 and $10,000, and he made cash deposits that often exceeded $9,000 but did not exceed $10,000.
- A partner testified that Sperrazza stated he never cashed more than $10,000 at a time to avoid “reports” or problems with regulators or the IRS.
- A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Georgia charged Sperrazza with three counts of tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201) and two counts of structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements (31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3)).
- A jury convicted him on all counts. The district court sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment and ordered criminal forfeiture of $870,238.99 tied to the structuring offenses.
- On appeal, Sperrazza argued (1) the structuring counts were facially defective and (2) the forfeiture was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the structuring counts were legally insufficient because they alleged numerous sub-$10,000 transactions over time rather than alleging a single transaction (or a specific “cash hoard”) exceeding $10,000 that was broken into smaller transactions to evade CTR reporting.
2. Whether forfeiture of $870,238.99 for the structuring offenses was “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of the offense and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Sperrazza’s structuring convictions, holding the indictment sufficiently alleged violations of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) by charging numerous transactions under $10,000 conducted for the purpose of evading the CTR requirement; the statute does not require pleading or proving a single transaction over $10,000 or a “cash hoard.”
- Applying plain-error review to the belated facial challenge to the indictment, the court found no error in the indictment’s use of statutory language and its allegations identifying the pattern of transactions and the purpose to evade reporting.
- The Eleventh Circuit also affirmed the criminal forfeiture order, holding the $870,238.99 forfeiture was not “grossly disproportional” under the Eighth Amendment because it closely tracked the amount involved in the structuring scheme and was consistent with the seriousness of repeated, purposeful evasion over a substantial time period when measured against the statutory penalty scheme.

## Legal Principles

- 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) requires financial institutions to file CTRs for currency transactions over $10,000; 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) makes it a crime to structure transactions with a financial institution for the purpose of evading that reporting requirement.
- To charge structuring under § 5324(a)(3), the government may allege a pattern of multiple sub-$10,000 transactions undertaken with the purpose of evading CTR reporting; the statute does not impose a separate “cash hoard” or single-transaction element.
- An indictment is generally sufficient when it tracks the statutory language and includes enough factual allegations to give the defendant notice of the charge and to permit a double-jeopardy bar in a later prosecution.
- Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, certain indictment challenges must be raised in the district court; when a facial sufficiency challenge is raised for the first time on appeal, review is for plain error.
- Criminal forfeiture is punishment and is subject to the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
- Under United States v. Bajakajian, a forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause only if it is “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of the offense; courts consider, among other things, the statutory penalties authorized for the offense and the relationship between the forfeited amount and the illegal conduct.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that the structuring counts properly charged violations of § 5324(a)(3) because they alleged repeated sub-$10,000 transactions conducted to evade CTR reporting, without any requirement to allege a single over-$10,000 transaction or “cash hoard,” and it upheld forfeiture of $870,238.99 as not grossly disproportional under the Eighth Amendment given the scope and purpose of the structuring conduct and the statutory penalty framework.


United States v. Sperrazza, 804 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2015).