## Facts

- George Thompson III was chairman of the board of Ridglea Bank in Fort Worth, Texas.
- Thompson had authorized multiple cash loans to Michael E. Welch, who struggled to repay.
- Welch proposed using proceeds of additional loans to buy and resell drugs to repay his debt; Welch later proposed switching from marijuana to cocaine for higher profits.
- Thompson had learned of federal currency transaction reporting requirements and told Welch future loan proceeds would be kept under $10,000 to avoid filing a Currency Transaction Report (CTR).
- Thompson arranged for $45,000 to be given to Welch in a single cash disbursement, but bank records documented it as five separate $9,000 notes with different maturity dates.
- Thompson admitted the multiple-note structure was intended to avoid triggering CTR filing.
- No CTR was filed; the teller who disbursed the cash testified he lacked sufficient information to file and relied on Thompson’s authority and lack of instruction.
- Welch used the $45,000 to purchase cocaine for resale and testified Thompson knew the purpose; Thompson denied actual knowledge of the intended use.

## Issues

1. Whether the Bank Secrecy Act reporting provisions and implementing regulations were unconstitutionally vague as applied because they did not define “transaction” or “currency transaction.”
2. Whether a bank officer may lawfully avoid CTR reporting by documenting a single large cash disbursement as multiple smaller notes under $10,000.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Thompson “caused” the bank’s failure to file a CTR under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), despite the teller’s role in filing.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed Thompson’s conviction.
- The court held the reporting scheme was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Thompson’s conduct.
- The court rejected the claim that Thompson could permissibly avoid reporting by splitting the obligation into sub-$10,000 notes when the cash was disbursed in one event.
- The court found sufficient evidence that Thompson willfully caused the failure to file a CTR and that the omission furthered drug-trafficking offenses.

## Legal Principles

- A single cash disbursement exceeding $10,000 constitutes a reportable “transaction in currency” even if the bank documents the obligation as multiple smaller notes.
- An as-applied vagueness challenge fails where a defendant had notice of the reporting duty and intentionally structured conduct to prevent reporting.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), a person is liable as a principal if he willfully causes another to commit an offense; a bank officer can “cause” non-filing by orchestrating the transaction and withholding direction or information needed for reporting.
- Artificial fragmentation of one cash event to avoid reporting may be treated as evasion inconsistent with the reporting requirements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Thompson’s conviction because the CTR duty attached to the single $45,000 cash disbursement, Thompson’s intentional note-splitting did not negate that duty, the statute was sufficiently clear as applied to his conduct, and the evidence supported that he willfully caused the bank’s non-filing in furtherance of drug offenses.


United States v. Thompson, 603 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1979)