United States v. $79,650.00 Seized From Bank of America Account Ending in 8247, 650 F.3d 381

Afework engaged in eight currency deposits under $10,000 each in April 2007 to deposit $79,650 without triggering reporting forms.
Deposits were conducted at PNC Bank and Bank of America, then consolidated into a single Bank of America account.
The government seized the money on February 21, 2008, and filed a civil forfeiture complaint under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(2) and § 5324 on November 26, 2008.
A magistrate judge held a bench trial and concluded Afework violated § 5324 by knowingly structuring to evade reporting, issuing December 8, 2009 Judgment.
Afework moved to suppress Excessive Fines challenges; the magistrate reduced the forfeiture to $50,000 on January 15, 2010 based on the Guidelines, while the government appealed for Eighth Amendment proportionality review; Afework cross-appealed on the same issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government proved Afework’s knowledge of the reporting obligation	Afework argues no knowledge that banks must report to the government	Afework argues evidence shows knowledge of banking regulation form	Sufficiency supported; cross-appeal denied
Whether the forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause given the governing penalty	Afework contends Guidelines provide the benchmark	Government argues statutory maximum applies due to aggravated conduct	Vacated; remanded to apply correct authorized penalty (up to $500,000) for proportionality analysis

Bajakajian v. United States, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (establishes gross proportionality test for excessive forfeitures)
United States v. Jalaram, 599 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2010) (examines proportionality factors and penalty relationship)
United States v. Ahmad, 213 F.3d 805 (4th Cir. 2000) (reiterates Bajakajian proportionality framework)
European Fed. Credit Bank Liquidators v. United States, 630 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses standards for proportionality in forfeiture cases)