United States v. Dimitrov

Stefan Dimitrov (defendant) was a Bulgarian immigrant. Dimitrov operated the Bulgarian Cultural Center (center) in Chicago. The center provided money-transfer services to Bulgaria, primarily through its account with TCF Bank (TCF). Between January 2003 and April 2005, the center transmitted approximately $3 million to Bulgaria. The center’s business was legitimate, but the center did not have an Illinois money-transmitting license. Instead, the center had a limited business license issued by the City of Chicago (Chicago license). According to Dimitrov, he believed that the Chicago license was sufficient for the center’s business. However, between September and December 2004, TCF asked Dimitrov several times to verify the center’s Illinois-license status and advised Dimitrov that it believed he was operating a money-services business. Although Dimitrov inquired about obtaining a state license, he never applied for one. TCF ultimately closed the center’s money-transmitting accounts, leading Dimitrov to open an account with another bank, which he used to transmit money until April 2005. In July 2005, the United States indicted Dimitrov for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1960, which made it a federal crime to knowingly conduct or operate a money-transmitting business without a required state license. Dimitrov pleaded guilty but reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of § 1960 on the ground that, as amended in 2001, the statute did not require him to know that his conduct was illegal. Before the amendment, § 1960 defined an illegal money-transmitting business to mean a business that “intentionally operated without an appropriate money transmitting license” in a state in which doing so was a crime. As amended, § 1960 defined an illegal money-transmitting business as one that operated without a required state license “whether or not the defendant knew that the operation was required to be licensed or that the operation was so punishable.” Per Dimitrov, the lack of a knowledge requirement (or mens rea) meant that the amended § 1960 failed to give fair notice of the conduct it prohibited.