I didn't and don't think you're being argumentative; I wanted to make sure you didn't think *I* was being argumentative - I can come across that way, especially when I'm arguing ;-P.
Regarding intent, again, in the article you quoted, there is the phrase "makes deposits under that amount *in order to avoid it.*" Emphasis added. If that last emphasized phrase were not there, then everyone everywhere would always be guilty of a federal felony.
If I make a random deposit of $23.52 into my checking account, well, that's a deposit under the amount...so am I structuring? No, obviously not, because I'm not depositing $23.52 into my checking account *in order to avoid the BSA or reporting of stuff*; I'm depositing $23.52 because that's how much my settlement check was from some Advil class action suit or something, and I happened to be going past the bank that day.
So, well, of course the law says structuring can happen over days or even longer. So if I make a series of random deposits into my checking account that total $10K over the course of several months, am I structuring? I would say not if it's an extension of the pattern above...maybe a week later I get a generous gift from my rich uncle for $5,000, and want to deposit that right away. Then my tax refund comes in, and I screwed up my taxes and that deposit is $6,300. Again, just ordinary behavior and ordinary deposits.
From the article you quoted: "Now, prosecutors need only show that a defendant knows about the $10,000 reporting requirement, and makes deposits under that amount in order to avoid it." So did I:
1. Know about the $10,000 reporting requirement? Yes.
2. Know about the $10,000 reporting requirement and make deposits under that amount? Yes.
3. Know about the $10,000 reporting requirement and make deposits under that amount in order to avoid it? No.
On the lack of clarity about the $39K statements I made: What I did was start day zero with no gift cards and no money orders. On day 1, I went out and bought $1K in gift cards, then bought $1K of money orders with the gift cards, then deposited that $1K MO into my bank at bank branch A. On day 2, I did the same thing as on day 1, but deposited the MO into bank branch B. On day 4, I did the same thing again but used branch A again. Etc, nearly daily, for a total of $39K over a period of about 45 days. So when I said I deposited only 8K, I did so in 8 different transactions of $1K each. Since the bank employees are doing me a favor and I appreciate when they are accommodating my strange banking behavior, I spread it out across multiple branches so that no one employee has to put up with my silliness.
So $39K passed through my hands during that 45 day period, but I started with zero gift cards and zero money orders and never at any point had more than $3K in my possession at any time.
Most of the structuring cases I read about - including the ones in the WaPo article you linked - seemed to be people who had more than $10K at once and then held back part of that money when making their first partial deposit. I know the law says that's not the only thing that could be considered structuring, but that seems to be the main example given. The other thing that is common among the examples are people depositing slightly under $10K. My deposits were almost entirely $1K or $2K, and I never held back any of my currency in order to make my deposits smaller.
"The investigation itself is an issue because your assets will be seized during the investigation." Right, exactly. In my situation, I did not use my main account. I don't know if they could seize other accounts; they probably could.
I'm still curious if you think the successful bartender in the WaPo article example (paragraph 6 if I counted correctly) would be safe from investigation if they made weekly cash deposits of $2K-$2.5K rather than a monthly deposit of $9.5K. I think yes, personally. I also think they would be wise to chat up their banker and explain that they're a bartender.
Finally, this is one more reason I'm glad I don't live in Maryland. (Because of the prosecutor mentioned in the WaPo article.)