Claimant has placed nothing at issue as the result of the her Answer. On the uncontested facts and the clearly stated law, the owner or bailee of the funds, whoever that might be, has violated 31 U.S.C. §5316(a)(2), subjecting the currency to forfeiture pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §5317 (c)(2); 31 U.S.C. § 5332(a)(1), subjecting the currency to forfeiture pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5332(c); 31 U.S.C. § 5324(c)(1) and 3, subjecting the currency to forfeiture pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2); and 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a)(1)(B), subjecting the currency to forfeiture pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c). Claimant has alleged no fact or circumstance upon which claimant may prevail under these uncontested facts and the prevailing law.

Each Claimant lied twice to the Customs Officer about the amount of funds he was bringing into the United States. The forfeiture of $32,000 is not grossly disproportionate to these violations of 31 U.S.C. § 5316. The Claimants have not rebutted the strong presumption that the forfeiture is constitutional when the amount is less than the statutory fine.

The absence of such allegations defeats Plaintiff’s substantive claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 1960; 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316, 5318. As for the Investor Defendants in particular, Plaintiff concedes that, in order to show that they are directly liable under Section 1960, it must allege that they were “in charge” of a business that violated the MTA.

But the Investor Defendants cannot have violated the MTA because they are not subject to that law, which governs money transmission businesses, not investors in such businesses. MTA § 2030 (“A person shall not engage in the business of money transmission in this state [i.e., California], or advertise, solicit, or hold itself 7 The Amended Complaint also makes passing references to two federal anti-money laundering statutes, 31 U.S.C. §5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5318. See AC ¶¶ 109–10.

In this case, as set forth above, the analysis of the Bajakajian factors compels the conclusion that the appropriate forfeiture to be levied here is no more than $5,000.00. Although the maximum penalty for a violation of 31 USC § 5316 is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, Bajakajian, itself, strongly suggests that the appropriate measure of the sentence and fines that could have been imposed in evaluating Factor (3) is that resulting from an application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 349 n.14 (“That the maximum fine and Guideline sentence to which respondent was subject were but a fraction of the penalties authorized, however, undercuts any argument based solely on the statute, because they show that respondent’s culpability relative to other potential violators of the reporting provision — tax evaders, drug kingpins, or money launderers, for example — is small indeed.” )

Bremmer was stopped by CBP at the Philadelphia airport boarding an outbound flight to Jamaica. The currency was seized and subject to forfeiture under the provisions of Title 31 United States Code, Section 5317 for a violation of Title 31 United States Code, Section 5316. The entire amount remains in the custody of CBP. 2.

Defendant’s motion makes the conclusory assertion that none of the exceptions apply, but this evidence clearly shows that the Defendant had encountered the reporting requirement before, and thus knew it and intended to avoid it on May 28, 2011. In a similar case from the Seventh Circuit involving a charge of failing to report the transportation of currency in an amount greater than $10,000 out the country under 31 U.S.C. § 5316, the Seventh Circuit upheld a district court’s admission of evidence that the defendant in that case had filled out reports containing the currency reporting requirements on prior trips under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). See United States v. Obiuwevbi, 962 F.2d 1236, 1240 (7th Cir. 1992).