In the case United States v. Zayas, decided on June 25, 2025, Zayas was charged with violating the Bank Secrecy Act. Under federal law, banks have a requirement to report any transaction involving more than $10,000 to the Department of the Treasury. See 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a); 31 C.F.R. § 1010.311. This federal statute and accompanying regulations are commonly referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act. This reporting requirement "is designed to facilitate the [government's] investigation of criminal activity." United States v. Zayas, No. 24-10425, 2025 WL 1748719, at *1 (11th Cir. June 25, 2025) (quoting United States v. Phipps, 81 F.3d 1056, 1058 (11th Cir. 1996)). "The Bank Secrecy Act also seeks to prevent individuals from circumventing a financial institution's reporting requirements." Zayas, 2025 WL 1748719, at *1. The Act accomplishes this goal by "impose[ing] criminal liability on any person who: (1) causes a financial institution to fail to file a CTR; (2) causes it to report false information on a CTR; or (3) structures transactions in an attempt to evade the CTR reporting requirement." Phipps, 81 F.3d at 1059.

In practice, criminal charges are only brought "when an individual causes [or attempts to cause] a financial institution not to file a CTR that it had a legal duty to file." Phipps, 81 F.3d at 1062. In this case, among other things, Zayas was charged with one "count of causing or attempting to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a currency transaction report pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1)." Zayas, 2025 WL 1748719, at *2.

Zayas was accused of participating in an online scam targeting elderly women in London. The fraudsters would call these victims, posing as their sons or grandchildren who had allegedly been in an accident and urgently needed money. Zayas served as the purported lawyer in this scheme, facilitating the transfer of victim funds into various accounts so the scammers could access the money. In executing this role, Zayas would wire money from a London bank to Wells Fargo in amounts slightly below $10,000 to avoid triggering reporting requirements. He would also change locations and banks while transferring the money, attempting to move the stolen funds in the fewest number of transactions possible, all under the $10,000 threshold. Based on this evidence, Zayas was convicted by the United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. See Id.

In response to this conviction, Zayas appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, Zayas would "contend… that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that he violated [the] [bank] [secrecy] [act]." Id. at 4. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, holding there was "sufficient [evidence] to convict Zayas of violating [the] [bank] [secrecy] [act]." Id. at 9. The Court found particularly compelling evidence in the pattern of transactions: "He made three separate withdrawals ranging from $8,000 to $8,500 [all] slightly below the reporting threshold." Id. at 8. These transactions alone were sufficient to establish irregular activity. Furthermore, the Court noted the stark contrast in account activity: "before the $25,000 wire transfer from London, the phone scam victim, Zayas's account had never received a deposit or seen a withdrawal over $1,500." Id. This dramatic change in transaction patterns demonstrated that Zayas's actions were willful and deliberate, not accidental.

The fact that Zayas withdrew money slightly below $10,000 at three different Wells Fargo branches created precisely the kind of suspicious pattern that would allow a jury to reasonably conclude he acted with intent to avoid the Bank Secrecy Act's reporting requirements. Accordingly, finding that a jury could reasonably view this evidence as sufficient to support a conviction for violating the Bank Secrecy Act, the district court's ruling was affirmed. The Court reached the correct and necessary decision in this case. This ruling firmly establishes the evidentiary standards required for conviction under the Bank Secrecy Act. While some may view this as a dangerous precedent that curtails individual freedom, such concerns are likely unfounded. This decision impacts only those making regular bank transfers of amounts slightly under $10,000 that cumulate to large sums, a pattern that rarely occurs in legitimate financial transactions.

This decision is particularly necessary in the digital age. With the prevalence of modern internet fraud, money can often be difficult to track. However, when there are repetitive cash withdrawals for amounts under $10,000, this ruling allows the government to bring charges for violating the Bank Secrecy Act and investigate additional evidence, making it more difficult to perpetrate digital fraud. While this case may open the door to some false accusations of violating the Bank Secrecy Act, such instances are unlikely. The type of conduct described in this case; multiple structured transactions across different branches following large, unusual deposits; largely does not happen by mistake. The ruling provides a reasonable framework for identifying and prosecuting intentional evasion of financial reporting requirements while protecting legitimate banking activities.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.