requirement mandates that the government prove, and the jury be instructed, that a defendant acted with knowledge that the structuring he undertook was unlawful. Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 663. The Supreme Court's holding in Ratzlaf is the controlling interpretation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and must be given full retroactive effect. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 322, 107 S.Ct. 708, 712-13, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). The jury instruction with respect to the unlawful structuring charge did not instruct the jury that the government was required to prove that the defendants acted with knowledge that the structuring he undertook was unlawful. Prior to Ratzlaf, the instruction was correct under the law of this circuit. See United States v. Jackson, 983 F.2d 757, 767 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). There was no objection to the instruction at
holding that the district court erred because it applied the enhancement without taking into account whether the defendant knew or should have known possession would be unlawful holding that it was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature of the controlled substance he was convicted of delivering when evidence established that he knew it was a controlled substance holding that a criminal violation of  5324a3 may be established without proof that the defendant knew that structuring was unlawful holding that a federal criminal defendant may waive jury trial without advice of counsel holding that in a prosecution for willfully violating federal law against structuring financial transactions to evade bank reporting requirements the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful