OPINIONS EN BANC
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
The government charged each of these appellants with criminal violations of the Bank Records and Foreign Transactions Act (BRFTA), Pub.L. No. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114 (1970) (codified as amended in various sections of 12 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., and 31 U.S.C.). Appellant Donovan was charged with, and convicted of, failure to file currency transaction reports (CTRs). See 31 U.S.C. § 5313 (1988). Appellants Aversa and Mentó were charged with, and convicted of, structuring bank deposits to avoid triggering currency transaction reporting requirements. See 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (1988). In each case, the underlying legal requirement comprises part of Subchapter II of the BRFTA. Subchapter IPs criminal penalty provision, 31 U.S.C. § 5322(a), proscribes only “willful” violations of the sub-chapter’s provisions.
A panel of this court initially heard Donovan’s appeal and decided it adversely to him. We subsequently withdrew the panel opinion and granted rehearing en banc, consolidating the appeal with appeals involving Aversa and Mentó, so that we might settle the meaning of the term “willful” as used in Subchapter II.1 The en banc court now affirms Donovan’s conviction while vacating the other convictions and remanding those cases for further proceedings.
1. BACKGROUND
These cases originated in different ways and traveled different paths to reach our doorstep. We sketch the background and then frame the common issue that all three appeals present.
A. Donovan.
Donovan, the president and chief executive officer of Atlantic Trust Company, a Boston-based financial institution, moonlighted as a real estate developer. A friend, Dr. Edward Saba, gave Donovan substantial sums of cash to deposit at Atlantic Trust for eventual investment in a New Hampshire housing subdivision. Eschewing Atlantic Trust’s standard protocol for routing deposits through tellers, Donovan personally deposited Saba’s money in five chunks of $30,000, $92,000, $30,000, $55,000, and $30,000, respectively. Donovan made the deposits at various times between March 13, 1987 and April 21, 1987. Although Donovan was the bank’s legal compliance officer — a status which presumptively suggests his familiarity with banking laws — he did not prepare CTRs for any of these deposits. Indeed, Donovan fended off his subordinates’ concerns about the unorthodox way he was handling Saba’s cash.
At trial, Donovan admitted that he was aware of the law requiring him to file CTRs for cash deposits of $10,000 or more, but insisted that he mistakenly believed Saba’s deposits came within one of the law’s exemptions.2 The district court in[495]*495structed the jury that it was the government’s burden to prove Donovan “knowingly” and “willfully” failed to file CTRs. The court twice explained these elements (once during the main charge and once in answering an inquiry during jury deliberations):
An act or a failure to act is knowingly done if it is done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. An act or a failure to act is done willfully if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, that is to say with bad purpose, either to disobey or disregard the law.
Despite Donovan’s importuning, the district court refused to tell the jury that any mistake by Donovan, regardless of its nature, would necessitate acquittal. The jury found Donovan guilty.
B. Aversa and Mentó.
Aversa and Mentó were partners in a real estate business. In January 1989, they sold a parcel of land, splitting the proceeds. At the time, Aversa’s marriage was foundering. In order to conceal his share of the profits from his wife, Aversa asked Mentó to deposit the receipts in Men-to’s personal bank account rather than in the partners’ joint business account. Men-tó agreed. Aversa signed a statement acknowledging his responsibility for one-half of the funds to insulate Mentó from potentially adverse tax consequences.
Mentó and Aversa knew that Mento’s bank was legally required to file CTRs for all deposits of $10,000 or more. Fearing that the resultant paper trail might obviate their efforts to hide the cash from Mrs. Aversa, the defendants made serial deposits and withdrawals in sums under $10,000. Although both men admitted that they knew about the CTR requirement, they claimed to be unaware that structuring bank transactions, even if designed to avoid causing the bank to file CTRs, was itself a crime.
Following the return of indictments, the government moved in limine to prevent the introduction of evidence supporting the defendants’ mistake-of-law theory. Judge Loughlin granted the motion. Aversa then pled guilty to structuring, but did so conditionally, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), reserving his mistake-of-law defense for appeal. Mentó opted for trial. At the trial, the district court, over timely objection, instructed the jury that mistake of law was not a defense to structuring. The jury found Mentó guilty.
C. The En Banc Issue.
Although these appellants breached different regulatory provisions of Subchapter II, each was convicted under the subchap-ter’s criminal penalty provision, 31 U.S.C. § 5322, and each raised a mistake-of-law defense. We convened the en banc court specifically to examine the efficacy of such defenses in the CTR and antistructuring contexts. At bottom, this task requires us to elucidate the state of mind that Congress required when it limited such violations to willful misconduct.
II. DISCUSSION
We begin with an analysis of the governing statute, exploring its interstices and explicating its meaning. We then proceed to tackle the knotty mens rea questions that confront us.
A. The Statutory Scheme.
In 1970, concerned about the ease with which criminals, particularly drug traffickers, were able to exchange ill-gotten profits for “clean” money, Congress enacted the BRFTA. Among other things, Subchapter II delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary) the power to require banks and individuals to file CTRs with the Internal Revenue Service when cash changed hands.3 See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. [496]*496§ 5313. The Secretary did not exercise his delegated power in respect to individuals, but required banks to file CTRs when transactions involved $10,000 or more. See 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(a)(1) (1989).
Although Subchapter II’s transaction report requirement expanded the armamenta-rium of federal law enforcement agents, it was too easily circumvented. Individuals who wished to avoid a paper trail for any reason could simply segment large sums of money into several transactions of less than $10,000. In an apparent effort to plug this loophole, Congress amended Sub-chapter II in 1986. Pub.L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5324. The new antistructuring provision limited an individual’s ability to dodge the CTR requirement.4 At the time, Congress considered, but decided not to alter, section 5322’s criminal provisions. Thus, section 5322, which criminalizes conduct undertaken by a “person willfully violating [sub-chapter II or a regulation promulgated under Subchapter II],” applies to the anti-structuring section as well as to the balance of Subchapter II. Although appellants stand convicted of different offenses — Donovan was found guilty of violating the CTR provision while the other two appellants were convicted of structuring infractions — they all argue that section 5322’s willfulness requirement means that, to be found guilty, they must have intentionally traversed a known legal duty. Consequently, they press a subjective standard of intent and asseverate that mistake of law necessarily constitutes a complete defense to the charges laid against them.
The government takes a diametrically opposite view. It contends that, because Congress made no express provision to the contrary, ignorance of the law cannot serve as a defense to the instant charges. See generally United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 284, 64 S.Ct. 134, 138, 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943) (holding that consciousness of wrongdoing is not necessary for conviction). The government’s position derives some support from an array of appellate cases which have disallowed mistake-of-law defenses in the transactional structuring milieu. See, e.g., United States v. Ratzlaf 976 F.2d 1280, 1283 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Canting, 968 F.2d 232, 238-39 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 416, 121 L.Ed.2d 339 (1992); United States v. Gibbons, 968 F.2d 639, 644 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Rogers, 962 F.2d 342, 344 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Brown, 954 F.2d 1563, 1568 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 284, 121 L.Ed.2d 210 (1992); United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 538 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402, 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991); United States v. Scanio, 900 F.2d 485, 490 (2d Cir.1990). For the reasons discussed below, we think these cases read section 5322 in an overly malleable manner.
B. Mens Rea: CTR Violations.
We start by analyzing the mens rea required with respect to CTR violations. Under the criminal penalty provision, 31 U.S.C. § 5322, violations, to be culpable, must be “willful.” The Court has long [497]*497recognized that willful “is a word of many meanings, its construction often being influenced by its context.” Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 497, 63 S.Ct. 364, 367, 87 L.Ed. 418 (1943). See generally Note, An Analysis of the Term “Willful” in Federal Criminal Statutes, 51 Notre Dame L.Rev. 786, 786-87 (1976).
Courts have coalesced around four definitions of willfulness. The first, which is most closely aligned with the government’s theory here, simply equates “willful” with “knowing” (i.e., so long as the defendant is aware of his conduct and the nature of his circumstances, no more is necessary). See, e.g., United States v. McCalvin, 608 F.2d 1167, 1171 (8th Cir.1979); see also American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 2.02(8) (1985).5 The second definition of willfulness, which is most closely aligned with appellants’ position, has its roots in tax-crime cases. This approach equates willfulness with the violation of a known legal duty. See, e.g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 200, 111 S.Ct. 604, 610, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (discussed infra Part II(D)). To our knowledge, no court of appeals has applied either of these first two definitions across the board in connection with the entire array of Sub-chapter II violations.
Several courts, however, have taken a hybrid approach to the issue of willfulness in the purlieus of Subchapter II. This approach is marked by its protean quality. Depending on the language of each particular regulatory provision, the word “willfully” as used in section 5322 takes on a variety of meanings, allowing mistake of law as a defense to certain crimes and not to others. This viewpoint is best typified by Scanio and its progeny. See Scanio, 900 F.2d at 490 (permitting mistake-of-law defense as to some currency-related crimes while prohibiting such a defense vis-a-vis other currency-related crimes); see also cases collected supra at p. 496.
We think that all three of these definitions create needless problems. The government’s theory undervalues the statute’s language by reading willfulness as if it were simply a synonym for general intent.6 In contrast, appellants’ theory, if applied across the board, would allow all mistakes of law, no matter how unreasonable, to serve as bucklers against prosecution, and, in the bargain, would vitiate the general principle that “deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable.” United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 3173, 49 L.Ed.2d 1188 (1976). Last, while Scanio and its progeny adopt a flexible definition of willfulness, they neither speak to the mens rea for CTR violations nor answer the critical question of how differing definitions can attach to a single usage of an operative term in a single statutory section.
For our part, we take yet a fourth tack— a tack adumbrated by the course we set in United States v. Bank of New England, 821 F.2d 844 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 943, 108 S.Ct. 328, 98 L.Ed.2d 356 (1987). In that case, we plotted the intersection between section 5322’s willfulness criterion and section 5313’s CTR require[498]*498ments. See id. at 854-59. Bank of New England had failed to prepare CTRs when a' customer repeatedly withdrew cash aggregating over $10,000 by means of multiple checks, each written for slightly under $10,000. The bank argued that it had not engaged in willful misconduct because it had not “violated a known legal duty.” Id. at 856. We rejected the bank’s plea because the evidence revealed that the bank’s professed unawareness about whether the reporting requirements applied to the transactions was a product of the bank’s deliberate blindness. See id. at 856, 857.
Our opinion in Bank of New England is not pathbreaking; it merely represents a particularized application of the rule de-fenestrating mistake-of-law defenses when the mistakes in question result from intentional or reckless disregard of a legal duty. See McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133, 135 n. 13, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 1681, 1682 n. 13, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988) (willfulness may bé shown either by actual knowledge or by “reckless disregard for the matter of whether [defendant’s] conduct was prohibited by the statute”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 126-28, 105 S.Ct. 613, 624-25, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (similar); see also Bank of New England, 821 F.2d at 886 (“the Supreme Court has endorsed defining willfulness, in both civil and.criminal contexts, as ‘a disregard for the governing statute and an indifference to its requirements’ ”) (quoting Trans World Airlines, 469 U.S. at 127, 105 S.Ct. at 624).
We adhere today to the teachings of Bank of New England and build upon that foundation. We believe that, in respect to alleged violations of the BFTRA’s CTR provisions, section 5322’s willfulness criterion demands that the government prove either the violation of a’known legal duty or the reckless disregard of the same. See Bank of New England, 821 F.2d at 866. We move forward from that point, therefore, to consider a question not present in Bank of New England: the significance of section 5322 in the antistructuring context.
C. Willful Structuring: One Word, One Meaning.
Section 5322 provides criminal sanctions for both CTR and structuring, offenses. As we determine the mens rea requirement for the latter group of crimes, it is axiomatic that the plain words and structure of the statute must be paramount. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 557-58, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 2130-31, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990); Stowell v. Ives, 976 F.2d 65, 69 (1st Cir.1992). Ordinarily, “identical terms within an Act bear the same meaning.” Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2589, 2596, 120 L.Ed.2d 379 (1992); accord Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484, 110 S.Ct. 2499, 2506, 110 L.Ed.2d 438 (1990). In the case at hand, the Cowart presumption is particularly strong. We explain briefly.
While courts have found on infrequent occasion that Congress intended a word to have different connotations when used in different provisions of the same Act, see, e.g., Greenwood Trust Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818, 830 n. 10 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 974, 122 L.Ed.2d 129 (1993); New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 742 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1174, 106 S.Ct. 2902, 90 L.Ed.2d 988 (1986), those instances almost always involve, at a bare minimum, multiple uses of a term or phrase within a panoramic statutory scheme. Here, however, we are not dealing with repetitions of a word at diverse points in a statute, but with a single word in a single statutory section. Ascribing various meanings to a single iteration of a single word — reading the word differently for each code section to which it applies— would open Pandora’s jar. If courts can render meaning so malleable, the usefulness of a single penalty provision for a group of related code sections will be eviscerated and, by extension, almost any code section that references a group of other code sections would become susceptible to individuated interpretation.
Furthermore, if Congress wanted the purposive mens rea in the antistructuring [499]*499statute to stand alone, it had several simple options. It could, for example, have placed the antistructuring provision somewhere other than in Subchapter II, or amended the criminal sanctions provision to except structuring violations.7 It exercised none of the available options. Thus, absent powerful evidence to the contrary, we believe courts should presume that Congress intended the mens rea set by section 5322 to apply in equal measure to both CTR violations and structuring offenses.
We recognize, of course, that notwithstanding these problems, several other courts have scuttled the Cowart presumption and read the word “willfully” in section 5322 differently as it applies to breaches of different currency regulations. Compare, e.g., Brown, 954 F.2d at 1568 (ruling that knowledge of the antistructuring law was not required to ground a structuring conviction) and Scanio, 900 F.2d at 490 (same) with, e.g., United States v. Eisenstein, 731 F.2d 1540, 1543 (11th Cir.1984) (upholding mistake-of-law defense for currency import and export violations) and United States v. Dichne, 612 F.2d 632, 636 (2d Cir.1979) (similar), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 928, 100 S.Ct. 1314, 63 L.Ed.2d 760 (1980). See also Dashney, 937 F.2d at 539-40 (declaring mistake of law to be a defense in respect to violations of currency import and export regulations but not in respect to structuring offenses). To warrant redefining “willfully” from crime to crime within the same statute, these courts generally attempt to distinguish antistruc-turing regulations from, say, currency importing regulations, on the basis of the “reasonable probability that knowledge [of the law] might be obtained” more easily in the former situation than in the latter. Scanio, 900 F.2d at 490 (citation omitted).
We must respectfully disagree with these courts. The distinction that they draw simply does not justify the transmogrification of the word “willfully” into a statutory chameleon. We are, moreover, particularly chary about adopting so pleo-chroic an approach in light of the more consistent, less complicated’ alternative offered in Bank of New England, 821 F.2d at 856. That alternative, which derives great vitality from the Supreme Court’s language, see McLaughlin, 486 U.S. at 133, 108 S.Ct. at 1681; Trans World Airlines, 469 U.S. at 126, 105 S.Ct. at 624, provides a fair, workable, mistake-of-law defense to those accused of currency-related crimes and at the same time ensures that defendants who know of the law’s requirements in a general sense, but recklessly or intentionally fail to investigate the legality of structuring or other proscribed activity, will be found guilty.
We hold, therefore, that the plain language of section 5322 governs; that the unitary willfulness standard of section 5322 should be given an identical meaning with respect to structuring and CTR violations;8 [500]*500and that, therefore, an unintentional, non-reckless mistake of law is a complete defense to a structuring charge.
D. Willfulness in the Tax Code.
In an effort to read the word “willfully” in a more charitable manner, all three appellants urge that the Court’s recent decision in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991), signifies that federal courts should apply a purely subjective standard to virtually all white-collar crimes that require a mens rea of willfulness as an element of the offense. Such a standard differs from the standard we endorse today because it would allow mistakes born of intentional or reckless ignorance to insulate defendants from criminal liability. Donovan’s case illustrates the practical effect of this suggestion: had the trial judge defined willfulness exclusively in terms of a subjective intent to disobey the law, the jury might have exonerated the defendant on the basis of a genuine, albeit reckless, misunderstanding about the law’s requirements.
We do not think that Cheek can carry the cargo that appellants load upon it.9 Cheek was a criminal tax case. The Court noted that the term “willfully,” as used in criminal tax statutes, had long been interpreted “as carving out an exception to the traditional rule” that ignorance of the law affords no defense to a criminal prosecution. Id. at 200, 111 S.Ct. at 609. Nowhere in Cheek, or in the Court’s earlier opinions involving criminal prosecutions under the tax laws, see, e.g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 97 S.Ct. 22, 50 L.Ed.2d 12 (1976) (per curiam); United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 93 S.Ct. 2008, 36 L.Ed.2d 941 (1973); United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933), is there any indication that courts should use a purely subjective standard in evaluating state-of-mind defenses under other federal statutes. Rather, the Cheek Court repeatedly qualified its discussion of the point by referring to the special context — criminal tax prosecutions — from whence the discussion proceeded. See, e.g., Cheek, 498 U.S. at 200, 201, 111 S.Ct. at 609, 610. The Court’s earlier opinions stressed the same point. See, e.g., Pomponio, 429 U.S. at 12 & n. 3, 97 S.Ct. at 23 & n. 3; Bishop, 412 U.S. at 360-61, 93 S.Ct. at 2017. This repeated qualification makes clear that the Court has crafted a narrow exception, limited to tax cases, in which subjective mistake of law can constitute an absolute defense.
Such a conclusion coheres with our long-held understanding of the tax-crime exception. In United States v. Aitken, 755 F.2d 188 (1st Cir.1985), we acknowledged the uniqueness of the tax statutes’ mens rea requirements. See id. at 193 (“That internal revenue reporting and filing requirements are an enclave apart is recognized.”). We read Cheek as confirming and fortifying the stance that we took in Aitken.
Moreover, and finally, the rationales supporting a subjective mistake-of-law defense in tax-crime cases do not apply to laws and regulations of the kind at issue here. As [501]*501the Second Circuit noted, "[o]ne of the most esoteric areas of the law is that of federal taxation. It is replete with ‘full-grown intricacies,’ and it is rare that a ‘simple, direct statement of the law can be made without caveat.’ ” United States v. Regan, 937 F.2d 823, 827 (citation omitted), modified, 946 F.2d 188 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2273, 119 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992). The federal tax code is not only enormous, detailed, and technical, but also interrelated and highly nuanced. Simply reading the words of the tax code does not always reveal the line between legal and illegal conduct. And for over sixty years, the Supreme Court has held that Congress does not intend to punish those who, in good faith, stray past that line.
For these reasons, we join the courts of appeals that have found the Cheek doctrine inapplicable to criminal prosecutions under the currency reporting laws.10 See, e.g., United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 91, 94-95 (5th Cir.1992); Brown, 954 F.2d at 1569 n. 2; Caming, 968 F.2d at 241; Dashney, 937 F.2d at 539-40. The currency statutes are comparatively few in number, target a much narrower range of conduct, and under the current regulations affect a considerably smaller constituency. The regulatory scheme, overall, is not intricate or even especially subtle. We think these distinctions are dispositive. Accordingly, we reaffirm Aitken and continue to hold that the Cheek exception is restricted to tax crimes. In a prosecution brought under Subchapter II, as we have explained, the criminal intent required for conviction is either the violation of a known legal duty or reckless disregard of the law. Consequently, appellants’ requests for the application of a wholly subjective standard were properly denied by Judges Loughlin and Devine.
III. APPLYING THE LAW
All that remains is for us to apply the fruits of our analysis to each appellant’s situation.
In Donovan’s case, the trial judge instructed the jury that Donovan’s actions were willful if he had the “bad purpose to disobey or to disregard the law.” While Judge Devine did not give the exact instruction which Donovan requested, the instruction he gave was almost identical to the instruction which we approved for CTR violations in Bank of New England, 821 F.2d at 855. Moreover, Donovan’s requested instruction focused on bad motive—and the Cheek Court made clear that a showing of bad motive is more restrictive than necessary, even under the tax-crime standard. See Cheek, 498 U.S. at 200, 111 S.Ct. at 610; see also Pomponio, 429 U.S. at 13, 97 S.Ct. at 24. Finally, the judge allowed the parties to introduce evidence pertaining to Donovan’s state of mind regarding the law and the facts.
The trial court—which, in instructing the jury, had no obligation to parrot the precise language favored by either side—gave a charge that, viewed in its entirety, adequately explained the legal issues, including every legitimate theory upon which Donovan’s defense could rest. No more was exigible. See United States v. McGill, 953 F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1124 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1005, 110 S.Ct. 1300, 108 L.Ed.2d 477 (1990). This is especially true where, as here, the defendant’s subjective mistake-of-law proposal went well beyond what the law requires in [502]*502its insistence upon proof of evil motive. See, e.g., United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722, 738 (1st Cir.1991) (holding that the district court may appropriately refuse to give a proposed jury instruction “which is incorrect, misleading, or incomplete in some material respect”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 605, 116 L.Ed.2d 628, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 908, 116 L.Ed.2d 809, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1298, 117 L.Ed.2d 520, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2301, 119 L.Ed.2d 224 (1992).
We find the remaining appeals to be cut from different cloth. Because of restrictive rulings made below, neither Aversa nor Mentó ever had a chance to present a mistake-of-law defense. Both of them were precluded by the government’s successful motion in limine from offering any evidence as to their ignorance of the anti-structuring law. Additionally, in Mento’s case the district judge charged the jury that mistake of law was no defense, declaring: “It is not necessary that the United States prove that the defendant knew that the structuring of his currency transactions was unlawful.”
Since neither of these defendants were afforded an opportunity to develop the record, and since both of them claim not to have known that what they did was illegal, we cannot say what a fully amplified record might show regarding Aversa’s and Mento’s familiarity with, or actual knowledge of, the antistructuring law.11 Similarly, we cannot say how the proof might shape up in respect to reckless disregard or deliberate blindness. It follows inexorably that, on this scumbled record, Aversa’s and Mento’s convictions cannot stand.
IV. CONCLUSION
We need go no further. In the context of the antistructuring and CTR provisions of Subchapter II, we find that a willful action is one committed in violation of a known legal duty or in consequence of a defendant’s reckless disregard of such a duty. In Donovan’s case, the introduction of evidence was not unduly restricted and the district court’s charge to the jury was adequate to comport with the proper standard. Thus, his appeal fails.12 Because neither Aversa nor Mentó had a chance to present evidence on a mistake-of-law theory, and because the trial court’s jury instruction in Mento’s case was harmfully erroneous, their convictions must be vacated and their cases remanded for further proceedings. By the terms of Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), Aversa may, if he so elects, withdraw his guilty plea in the court below. See United States v. Lyons, 898 F.2d 210, 214 n. 5 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920, 111 S.Ct. 295, 112 L.Ed.2d 249 (1990).
In Appeal No. .91-1574, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
In Appeals Nos. 91-1363 and 91-1364, the judgments of conviction are vacated and the cases remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.