Safe Havens

(G)  Financial Regulations.  Violations of financial regulations are normally regulatory in nature, and not crimes of moral turpitude, unless fraud is involved as an essential element of the offense.  For example, the Ninth Circuit found that moral turpitude was not involved in the offense of structuring financial transactions to avoid currency reports,[960] since the statute did not make intent to defraud the government an essential element of the offense, the defendant could have been convicted even if he were not aware his conduct was illegal, and, even if the Supreme Court were to add the element of scienter to the offense, that construction would not of itself convert the crime into one of moral turpitude.[961]  The Board of Immigration Appeals found that, in the absence of any morally reprehensible conduct, convictions under 31 U.S.C. § § 5324(a)(1) and (3) would not be considered CMTs.[962]  The same hold true of violations of certain New York banking laws.[963]

[960] 31 U.S.C. § § 5322(b), 5324(a)(3).

[961] Goldeshtein v. INS, 8 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655, 661 (1994) (structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements “is not inevitably nefarious”).

[962] Matter of LVC, 22 I. & N. Dec. 594 (BIA 1999), overruling Matter of Goldeshtein, 20 I. & N. Dec. 382 (BIA 1991).

[963] See Matter of B, 6 I. & N. Dec. 98 (BIA 1954) (conspiracy to violate New York Banking Law § § 340, 357 is not a CMT, since those sections are merely regulatory enactment; statement in the conspiracy count relating to intimidation and threats was immaterial since it was surplusage and not necessary for conspiracy conviction).