U.S. v. Chen, 78-2873
Decision Date | 20 July 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-2873,78-2873 |
Citation | 605 F.2d 433 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shui-Yee Shirley CHEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Vincent H. D. Abbey, Abbey, Strand & Fox, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Marie G. Creson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before SNEED and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and D. WILLIAMS, * District Judge.
The sole issue on appeal is whether defendant willfully violated the currency reporting requirement of 31 U.S.C. § 1101. Section 1101 mandates that anyone who knowingly transports more than $5,000 into the United States must file a report. 1 Section 1058, 31 U.S.C., imposes criminal penalties for willfully failing to file a report. Thus, for criminal culpability there must be: (1) knowing transportation of the money into this country, and (2) a willful failure to file a report.
On board her flight from Hong Kong to Seattle, defendant partially completed Customs Declaration Form 6059-B. She asked for assistance from a cabin attendant, but the flight landed before the attendant could return. After the plane landed, defendant completed Form 6059-B, answering "No" to Item 10, which asks: "Are you or anyone in your party carrying over $5,000.00 in coin, currency, or monetary instruments?"
While her luggage was being examined, a Customs Inspector asked the defendant how much currency she was carrying. The defendant replied that she had approximately $14,000. Inasmuch as the defendant was accompanied by her two children, a report was not required unless her total currency exceeded $15,000. The Customs Inspector found several packets of money in defendant's tote bag.
Defendant was then removed to a secondary inspection area where the money was counted. The total exceeded $22,000. Form 4790, which is the form that must be filled out to comply with Section 1101, was then completed. A Special Agent then entered the room and ordered that the completed Form 4790 be destroyed and that the money be confiscated.
Defendant was subsequently charged with violating Sections 1101 and 1058. A magistrate found defendant guilty, and his findings were affirmed by the district court.
Before discussing the issue argued by the parties, we wish to make clear that the intentional destruction of Form 4790 was unjustified and inexcusable. The form was obviously material evidence; its possible exculpatory value surely must have been foreseen by this experienced, well-traveled federal agent. Yet at trial the Special Agent could offer no reason why the form needed to be destroyed. The Agent could only lamely explain that in his judgment: "It had no value; the violation already had been detected . . .. " We remind the Agent that it is for the courts to determine whether evidence has any value and when a violation has occurred. 2 We would seriously consider reversing defendant's conviction on this ground alone if the conviction were otherwise free from reversible error.
There was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant knew she was carrying more than $15,000, but the evidence that defendant knew she must file a report was woefully insufficient. Form 6509-B did not inform the defendant that Form 4790 must be completed if the answer to Item 10 were "Yes," 3 nor did the Customs Inspector so inform the defendant. In a case presenting facts materially identical to the facts here, the Fifth Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. One Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Forty-Three Dollars ($122,043.00) In U.S. Currency
...based on cases which construe the criminal provisions of the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act. E.g., United States v. Chen, 605 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir.1979) (issue was whether defendant willfully violated currency reporting requirement as prohibited by what is now 31 U.S.C. S......
-
U.S. v. Flores
...there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistently with due process."); United States v. Chen, 605 F.2d 433, 435 (9th Cir.1979) ("There was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant knew she was carrying more [than the statutory amount], but ......
-
U.S. v. Warren
...checkpoint); United States v. Rodriguez, 9 Cir., 1979, 592 F.2d 553 (entry through international airport); United States v. Shui-Yee Shirley Chen, 9 Cir., 1979, 605 F.2d 433 (entry through international Because the Warrens set sail from Florida without passing through any regular border che......
-
U.S. v. $359,500 in U.S. Currency, 827
... ... Id. (citing United States v. Chen, 605 F.2d 433, 434 (9th ... Cir.1979)). While "willfully violates" necessarily includes ... Those statutes and circumstances, therefore, are readily distinguishable from those now before us ... ...