United States v. Robert B. Sperrazza
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14415
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Dr. Sperrazza was convicted on three tax evasion counts and two structuring counts; district court imposed 36 months and forfeiture of $870,238.99.
- Structuring counts charged 2007 and 2008 transactions totaling over $800k; government sought forfeiture of same amount.
- Sperrazza allegedly deposited cash and cashed checks in amounts typically just under $10,000 to evade currency reporting.
- Indictment included 108 transactions across 2007–2008; minor factual discrepancy: some deposits were cash, not checks.
- On appeal Sperrazza argues the indictment is defective and the forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment states an offense adequately? | Sperrazza: counts 4–5 fail to state an offense under §5324(a). | Sperrazza: Lang requires showing cash on hand >$10,000; indictment too broad. | Indictment sufficiently charges structuring under §5324(a)(3). |
| Multiplicity of structuring counts? | Counts 4 and 5 duplicative for two-year period. | Waived; appellate review not warranted for multiplicity. | Counts deemed abandoned for review; no relief awarded. |
| Factually inaccurate indictment? | Indictment misstates some deposits as checks instead of cash. | Inaccuracy did not prejudice defense; proof showed deposits/cash deposits; plain error not established. | Indictment factually inaccurate but not substantially prejudicial; no reversal based on plain error. |
| Excessive Fines Clause as to forfeiture amount? | Forfeiture of $870,238.99 excessive given offense. | Forfeiture within reasonable relation to statute and guidelines; not grossly disproportionate. | Forfeiture not grossly disproportionate; does not violate Eighth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lang, 732 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2013) (establishes unit of structuring and that single cash check below $10,000 cannot alone constitute structuring)
- United States v. Vazquez, 53 F.3d 1216 (2d Cir. 1995) (conviction for structuring cash deposits affirmed; shows cash deposits can be structuring)
- United States v. Aunspaugh, 792 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2015) (recognizes structuring can involve multiple transactions under $10,000 without requiring a single hoard)
- Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (Supreme Court 1998) (forfeiture may be unconstitutional if grossly disproportional to offense)
- Chaplin’s, Inc., 646 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 2011) (forfeiture review involves proximity to statutory max and guideline range)
- United States v. Dowling, 403 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005) (sufficiency of the evidence and related forfeiture considerations)