U.S. v. Chen, No. 78-2873
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before SNEED and ANDERSON; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 605 F.2d 433 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shui-Yee Shirley CHEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2873 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1979 |
Page 433
v.
Shui-Yee Shirley CHEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Ninth Circuit.
Page 434
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.
PER CURIAM.
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
Page 435
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Flores, No. 82-1445
...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. One Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Forty-Three Dollars ($122,043.00) In U.S. Currency, TWENTY-TWO
...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. Warren, No. 75-4368
...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 checkpoints, this case is the ......
-
U.S. v. Forty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Dollars ($47,980) in Canadian Currency, FORTY-SEVEN
...out of the ranks of strict liability type crimes." United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir.1978); see United States v. Chen, 605 F.2d 433, 434 (9th In the civil forfeiture provision, by contrast, Congress did not include any scienter requirement. The statute provides simply that......
-
U.S. v. Flores, No. 82-1445
...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], ......
-
U.S. v. One Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Forty-Three Dollars ($122,043.00) In U.S. Currency, TWENTY-TWO
...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. Warren, No. 75-4368
...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 checkpoints, this case is the ......
-
U.S. v. $359,500 in U.S. Currency, No. 827
..."an additional element the government must prove to secure a criminal" conviction. Id. (citing United States v. Chen, 605 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Page 934 Cir.1979)). While "willfully violates" necessarily includes "knowingly transports", the converse is not true. T......