IN THE MATTER OP MAGDY F. ANISE AN ATTORNEY AT LAW
Argued: January 18, 2018
Docket No. XIV-2015-0389E
A. Racz appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics.
Respondent's counsel waived appearance for oral argument.
A. Brodsky Chief Counsel
BRUCE W. CLARK, VICE-CHAIR.
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
matter was before us on a motion for final discipline filed
by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), pursuant to R:
1:20-13, following respondent's guilty plea in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey (DNJ), to
having violated 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1) (for purpose of
evading reporting requirements, cause a bank to fail to file
a required report). The OAE recommends a one-year suspension.
Respondent agrees with that recommendation. For the reasons
stated below, we determine to impose a six-month suspension.
was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1987. On May 14, 2013,
he was placed on disability inactive status. He was
reinstated to active status on August 27, 2017.
January 10, 1992, respondent received a reprimand for having
violated RPC 7.3(b)(1) (improper solicitation of a client).
Specifically, respondent had sent a solicitation letter to
the father of a passenger killed in the Pan Am flight 103
disaster, in Lockerbie, Scotland. In re Anise, 126
N.J. 448 (1992).
* * *
7, 2015, a grand jury for the DNJ returned a two-count
indictment against respondent. Count one, to which he pleaded
guilty, charged that respondent caused banks where he held
accounts to fail to file a currency transaction report (CTR),
in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1). Count two
charged respondent with "structuring" multiple bank
deposits in increments under $10, 000 to avoid the federal
reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §
March 15, 2016, before the Hon. William H. Walls, Senior U.S.
District Judge, respondent pleaded guilty to count two of the
indictment. At the sentencing hearing on January 24,
2017, however, the Assistant U.S. Attorney and
respondent's counsel agreed that the plea entry was
erroneous and that respondent had pleaded guilty to count one
of the indictment, a violation of 31 U.S.C. §
5324(a)(1). During the plea hearing, respondent contended
that the amount of funds involved in the
"structuring" misconduct was less than $200, 000
and that this misconduct was not part of a pattern of
unlawful activity involving more than $100, 000 in a
twelve-month period. Specifically, respondent made multiple
deposits of less than $10, 000 each, totaling almost $200,
000, at three different banks, so that the banks would not
file the requisite CTRs.
January 24, 2017, Judge Walls sentenced respondent to four
years' probation, including seven months of home
confinement. The judge also imposed a $2, 000 fine and a $100
assessment. In addition, respondent agreed to forfeit $200,
000 to the United States Treasury. Respondent explained that
he had structured his deposits, not in an effort to hide any
wrongdoing, but because he "didn't want his business
made more public than it had to be." Specifically, from
1990 to about 2011, he purchased gold by the ounce, mainly as
investments for his children's college fund. Respondent