to another.” Defendants argue that the only relevant transactions here were the defendants’ purchase of CDs with checks issued payable to them by the Puerto Rico lottery. We concede that such “transactions,” viewed in a vacuum, do not in and of themselves trigger a duty on the part of the bank to file CTRs. “Transaction,” however, is a “word of flexible meaning” which “may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship. ...” Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, 610, 46 S.Ct. 367, 371, 70 L.Ed. 750 (1926). Hence, just as courts have refused to view “broken up” cash transactions of less than $10,000 occurring at the same bank on the same day in a vacuum, see, e.g., Giancola, supra (<HOLDING>), accord, United States v. Puerto, supra;
holding that payment must be intended as wages and be substantial consideration such that a reasonable person would be induced to give up the right to bring a tort claim against the employer holding that such broken up transactions must be aggregated into one holding that policies must be aggregated to determine underinsured status holding that plaintiff must present such evidence holding impermissible practice of taking partial verdicts from deadlocked juries when single charge is broken down into lesser charges because it would constitute an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the province of the jury