United States v. Lang, 732 F.3d 1246

Lang was indicted on 85 counts under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) for structuring cash transactions.
The indictment was challenged as legally defective for failing to allege all elements of the offense.
Section 5324(a)(3) prohibits structuring to evade reporting requirements under § 5313(a).
Structuring, as explained by Ratzlaf, involves breaking a single transaction above the threshold into smaller ones to evade reporting.
The government contends Lang’s conduct spanned many payments over months; the indictment, however, alleged only individual checks each under $10,000.
The court holds the indictment is defective on its face and must be dismissed rather than amended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the proper unit of prosecution for structuring offenses?	Lang's series of sub-threshold payments constitute multiple structuring acts.	Only the overarching structuring of amounts above the threshold matters; charging each sub-threshold payment is improper.	The unit is the amount exceeding the threshold structured into smaller amounts, not each sub-threshold transaction.
Does the indictment adequately allege all elements of structuring?	Paragraph 1 realleged pattern language supports the offense.	Indictment fails to plead a single, chargeable structuring act per count.	Indictment fails to allege the necessary elements for each count and cannot be cured by other counts.
Can allegations from other counts cure a deficient count?	Context from the multi-count indictment can illuminate the charged conduct.	Each count must stand on its own with express incorporation if needed.	No; defects across all counts prevent curing by other counts; indictment must be dismissed.
What remedy is appropriate for a defective indictment charging structuring?	Remand would allow correction consistent with the government’s theory.	Correction would require rewriting or resubmission to grand jury.	Judgment vacated and case remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment.

Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (defines structuring as breaking a transaction to evade reporting)
United States v. Davenport, 929 F.2d 1169 (7th Cir. 1991) (unit of crime is the larger structuring act, not each sub-deposit)
United States v. Nall, 949 F.2d 301 (10th Cir. 1991) (aggregates multiple payments into a single structuring offense)
United States v. Huff, 512 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1975) (indictment must state each count independently)
United States v. Gray, 260 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2001) (pleading requirements and incorporation standards)
United States v. Dabbs, 134 F.3d 1071 (11th Cir. 1998) (indictment sufficiency framework (elements, notice, double jeopardy))
United States v. Pena, 684 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2012) (indictment sufficient if it provides facts and statute; context cannot cure defects)
Schmitz v. United States, 634 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2011) (express incorporation required; counts cannot rely on other counts)
Bonavia v. United States, 927 F.2d 565 (11th Cir. 1991) (remedial approach to defective indictments; dismissal in certain cases)
Mastrangelo v. United States, 733 F.2d 793 (11th Cir. 1984) (limitations on curing defective indictments)
Russell v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1962) (grand jury amendments to indictments are generally not allowed)
Pena v. United States, 684 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2012) (treats as controlling for indictment sufficiency and incorporation)