U.S. v. Granda, No. 77-5027

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore BROWN, Chief Judge, RONEY and FAY; FAY
Citation565 F.2d 922
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Araceli Cremata GRANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date09 January 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-5027

Page 922

565 F.2d 922
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Araceli Cremata GRANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 77-5027.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 1978.

Page 923

Karl J. Leib, Jr., Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Jack V. Eskenazi, U. S. Atty., Charles A. Intriago, David Geneson, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, RONEY and FAY, Circuit Judges.

FAY, Circuit Judge:

On November 29, 1976, Araceli Cremata Granda was found guilty of knowingly and willfully transporting monetary instruments in an amount exceeding $5,000.00 into the United States in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1101. Her appeal raises the issue of what significance the words knowingly and willfully have in the context of these statutes.

Title 31 U.S.C. § 1101 provides in part:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, whoever . . . knowingly

(1) transports or causes to be transported monetary instruments

(A) from any place within the United States to or through any place outside the United States, or

(B) to any place within the United States from or through any place outside the United States, or

(2) receives monetary instruments at the termination of their transportation to the United States from or through any place outside the United States

in an amount exceeding $5,000 on any one occasion shall file a report or reports in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.

The report to be filed by a traveler covered by § 1101 is known as Form 4790, and is entitled "Report of International Transportation Currency or Monetary Instruments." Subsection (b) of § 1101 sets forth the information which the filed report should contain, and it provides specifically:

(b) Reports required under this section shall be filed at such times and places, and may contain such of the following information and any additional information,

Page 924

in such form and in such detail, as the Secretary may require:

(1) The legal capacity in which the person filing the report is acting with respect to the monetary instruments transported.

(2) The origin, destination, and route of the transportation.

(3) Where the monetary instruments are not legally and beneficially owned by the person transporting the same, or are transported for any purpose other than the use in his own behalf of the person transporting the same, the identities of the person from whom the monetary instruments are received, or to whom they are to be delivered, or both.

(4) The amounts and types of monetary instruments transported.

The criminal penalties for failure to file a report required by § 1101 are provided for in 31 U.S.C. § 1058 which states:

Whoever willfully violates any provision of this chapter or any regulation under this chapter shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

In our case, Mrs. Granda was charged with the violation of these statutes when she returned to the United States from a trip to Panama. Upon arrival at the Miami International Airport she presented a customs official her "Customs Declaration" card (known as Customs Form 6059-B), which she apparently was not responsible for filling out, but which she did sign. 1 Question 10 on Form 6059-B asks whether "you or anyone else in your party (is) carrying over $5,000.00 in coin, currency, or negotiable instruments." The box "no" on defendant's form was checked. During the routine examination of the defendant's belongings, the customs officer saw $5,000 in an unsealed envelope in the defendant's purse. Another $5,000 was found in the defendant's wallet. The defendant claimed that $5,000 of the money belonged to her traveling companion, but her companion could not be found to verify this. The defendant also claimed that she was unaware of the reporting requirements of § 1101. Mrs. Granda was cooperative during this whole ordeal; and at no time did the customs officials advise her of, or present her with, a Form 4790 to complete in order to comply with § 1101. The customs officials eventually seized the $10,000 and placed the defendant under arrest.

Our task today is to determine the significance of the terms knowingly and willfully as used in these statutes. The defendant contends that since § 1101 requires a knowing violation and § 1058 requires a willful violation, the mere failure to comply with terms of the statutes is not a crime unless it can be shown that the defendant had knowledge of the reporting requirements and acted with the specific intent to circumvent those requirements. On the other hand, the government contends that we are not dealing with a specific intent crime, and that the terms knowing and willful require only that the person charged with the duty know what he is doing and that he act deliberately. The government argues that the statutes do not require that the defendant be aware of the fact that he is breaking the law.

Our research has uncovered no case law in the Fifth Circuit defining these terms as applied to §§ 1058 and 1101. There is, of course, a tremendous amount of case law in every court defining these terms as used in the context of other federal criminal statutes. Not surprisingly, however, these terms have defied any consistent interpretation by the courts. 2 The Second Circuit is

Page 925

the only Court of Appeals directly to confront the meaning of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., Nos. 89-2129
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 13, 1991
    ...in order to prove a criminal violation of the currency transaction reporting requirements. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5322; United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir.1978) (construing Sec. 5322's predecessor, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1058. 31 Unlike the currency reporting statutes, however, the statute......
  • Ivers v. U.S., Nos. 76-1074
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 18, 1978
    ...element of a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 1058 and that a specific intent to commit the crime must be shown. United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. San Juan, 545 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976). The transcript of the proceedings before the United States Magistrate at th......
  • U.S. v. Anderez, No. 80-5720
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 16, 1981
    ...well developed exculpatory no doctrine. Citing United States v. Schnaiderman, 568 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1978), and United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1978), Anderez argues Page 409 that, because he was not told by Nerren that it was legal to bring more than $5,000 into the countr......
  • U.S. v. Flores, No. 82-1445
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 21, 1985
    ...the statutory amount], but the evidence that defendant knew she must file a report was woefully insufficient."); United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir.1978) ("[T]he failure to report, when one is without knowledge of the reporting requirement, must be classified as a nonfeasan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
61 cases
  • U.S. v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., Nos. 89-2129
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 13, 1991
    ...in order to prove a criminal violation of the currency transaction reporting requirements. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5322; United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir.1978) (construing Sec. 5322's predecessor, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1058. 31 Unlike the currency reporting statutes, however, the statute......
  • Ivers v. U.S., Nos. 76-1074
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 18, 1978
    ...element of a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 1058 and that a specific intent to commit the crime must be shown. United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. San Juan, 545 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976). The transcript of the proceedings before the United States Magistrate at th......
  • U.S. v. Anderez, No. 80-5720
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 16, 1981
    ...well developed exculpatory no doctrine. Citing United States v. Schnaiderman, 568 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1978), and United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1978), Anderez argues Page 409 that, because he was not told by Nerren that it was legal to bring more than $5,000 into the countr......
  • U.S. v. Flores, No. 82-1445
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 21, 1985
    ...the statutory amount], but the evidence that defendant knew she must file a report was woefully insufficient."); United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir.1978) ("[T]he failure to report, when one is without knowledge of the reporting requirement, must be classified as a nonfeasan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FRAUD
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...met the notice requirement and that a written reporting form with instructions was not required); see also United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that proof of knowledge “is almost impossible unless aff‌irmative steps are taken by the government to make the laws......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT