United States v. Van Allen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that knowledge and intent can be shown by evidence that defendant, despite inefficiency and inconvenience, dealt in small amounts that avoided reports
• noting that knowledge and intent can be shown by evidence that defendant, despite inefficiency and inconvenience, dealt in small amounts that avoided reports
• finding that the defendant engaged in illegal structuring by conducting a series of deposits and withdrawals, and explaining that “[t]he sheer volume of the transactions almost compels the conclusion reached by the jury”
• defining “structuring” as “altering the form of a transaction in order to avoid activating the bank’s duty to file a currency transaction report” and noting this definition “meshes well with [the definition] in the Treasury regulation” (quotation marks omitted)
• “[A] lawyer’s fully informed opinion that certain conduct is lawful (followed by conduct strictly in compliance with that opinion) can negate the mental state required for some crimes, including fraud.”
• “The fact that [defendant] was willing to sacrifice efficiency and convenience . . . by going to separate banks in the same day to make almost identical deposits supports the inference that he knew of and intended to avoid the reporting requirements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).