Cash structuring · one worked example
Three deposits.
None over $10,000.
All in one day.
Each deposit is under the reporting threshold, so each one passes on
its own. Together they are a reporting obligation. The question a regulator asks two
years later is not whether you had a rule. It is which rule was running that day, and
whether it ran.
Move the money. Watch the decision change.
Three cash deposits from one customer, across one day. Drag any of them.
$10,000 reporting threshold
$9,600
total cash in, 24 hours
ALLOW
Aggregate under threshold.
- Decision
- ALLOW
- Rule in force
- AUSTRAC-TTR / 10,000 AUD / 24h
- Rule version
- v2026.03
- Recorded
- —
That last block is the point. It is what you hand a
regulator to show which rule was in force when the decision was made.
Synthetic figures, running in this browser. The arithmetic is
the same as the open-source gate: integer cents, a rolling 24-hour window, and a
single deposit at or over the threshold reported in its own right rather than counted
as a structuring catch.
The number nobody publishes
Catching structuring is the easy half.
356 of 356
structuring days caught
57%
of legitimate cash businesses held for review
26,521
synthetic customer-days measured
Summing deposits and comparing to a threshold is arithmetic. Every transaction
monitoring product has done it since the 1990s, and a rule that holds everything
scores a perfect catch rate. The number that decides whether a rule can go anywhere
near production is the second one: the market traders, restaurants and car washes
whose ordinary Tuesday looks exactly like structuring.
That rule is not deployable as written, and that is the finding. Bringing the
false-hold rate down without losing the catch rate is the actual work, and it can only
be done against a real institution's transaction mix. That is what a pilot is for.
What changes with AI in the loop
The rule is not the new problem. Proving which rule ran is.
When a person applied the policy, the file showed their reasoning. When a model
drafts the assessment, the same question is harder to answer: which policy version
did it use, was it the one in force that day, and would it give the same answer if
asked again.
EcoKure sits beside the existing process and answers those three questions for every
decision. It does not replace transaction monitoring and makes no suspicion
determination.
What a pilot looks like
One workflow, in shadow mode, for a quarter.
- Your risk function owns the threshold, the window and the policy citations.
- It runs beside production, changing nothing.
- You get the decisions, the exceptions and the false-hold rate on your own mix.
- Then a go or no-go against criteria agreed before the start.
What this is not. It is not an AML system. It makes no
suspicion determination, files nothing, and does not replace transaction monitoring or
a reporting obligation. The threshold and window shown here are one configured rule for
demonstration, not AUSTRAC guidance. Every figure on this page comes from synthetic
data; catch and false-hold rates depend entirely on a real institution's transaction
mix. EcoKure holds no AUSTRAC or APRA approval and this page is not compliance advice.