FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 27, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Will is B. Hunt, J r., United States Senior District J udg e for the Northe rn District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 04- 1051 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 02-60012-CR-DM M
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us PAUL JOHNSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (F eb ru ar y 27 , 200 6) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BARKETT, Circ ui t J ud ge , and HUNT , * Senior D istrict Judg e. PE R C U RI A M:2

Pa ul J ohns on a

ppe al s his c onvi ct ionf or c onsp ir ing to an d c om m itt ing
se curi tie s fr au d in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 371 an d 15 U
. S. C. § 78j (b ), per jury i n violatio n o f 18 U. S. C. §§ 16 23(a), and conspi ring to and comm itting m oney launde ri ng i n vi ola tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 1 956( a) (1 )( A )( i) a nd ( h) , 19 5 6 (a )( 2) (B )( i) a nd 2, a nd 1 957. T he e vid en ce pr oduc ed at tr ia l est ab lis he d that John son fo rm ed L ink E xpr es s D el ive ry S olu tio ns ( “ L E D S” ) in O ct obe r 1997 , a pa ck ag e de liv er y se rv ic e de sc ri bin g its el f as a com

pe tit or of Fe de ra l Ex pr es s. Joh nson , a n e nte rp ri sin g m an , se rv ed a s th e pr es ide nt, m aj or ity

share hol de r, c ha irman, an d c hie f ex ec uti ve of fi ce r of the
com pany . At the sam e tim e that he incorporated L ED S, Johns on a l so incorpo rated J& J B usi ne ss M an ag em en t and p ut tha t c om pa ny in the na m e of his m oth er , Cate ri na Jo hn so n. T his c as e inv olv es an ex te nsi ve ca pit al inv es tm en t sc he m e w he re by Joh nson pr oc ur ed ove r $15 m ill ionin ca

pit al f ro m hundre ds of unw ar

y inv es tor s thr oughf

ive pr iva te sto ck

of fe ri ngs be tw ee n 19 97 and 2 000. C ontrary to his r ep re se nta tio ns t o inv e s t o r s th at

th e i r i n v es tm en ts w oul d be use d e xc lus ive ly f or f inanc ing a nd o pe ratin g L E D S, Joh nsonabsc onde d w ithove r $5. 5 m ill ion , w hic h he use d to pur ch as e hom es , boa ts, c ar s, an d plas tic sur ge ry f or vari ous gir lf

ri en ds, a s w el l a s to f

und his e xte nsi ve interest in gam

bling
. He also diverted m oney from LE DS to fund a nigh tclub called3

Bac ch an al iatha t f

old ed thr ee w ee ks a ft er

ope nin g f

or de fa ult ing on i ts l ea se pa ym en ts. Joh nsone ve ntu al ly dis sol ve d L E D S an d no tifi ed inv es tor s th at

L ink W or ldw ide L ogi sti cs ( “ L W L ”) , sup pose dly L E D S’ pare nt c om

pany, ha d take n it s pla ce . L W L ope rate d unde r the sa m e busi ne ss plan a s L E D S, a nd J ohns on o nc e ag ai n
wa s th e pr es ide nt, c hie f ex ec uti ve of fi ce r, c ha irm an , a nd m aj or ity share hol de r. He the re af te r co nvi nc ed

inv es tor s e ith er

to co nve rt

the ir L E D S share s to L W L share s f or
a fee of five dollars per share, or to e xchange their LE DS shares for LW L sh ares
w ith out f ee s, co nti nge nt upon the ir inv es tm en t of add iti ona l m one y int o LW L
. U sin g the se ne w inv es tor

f unds in L W L , Joh nsonpur ch as ed Po ny Ex pr es s, a n e xpr es s de liv er y se rv ic e, out

of bankr upt cy a ft er w hic h it a lso start ed

to fa il as ares ul t of John son pil fe ri ng l ar ge a m ount s of ca sh fr om the co m pa ny up unti l the poi nt o f his
ar re st i n 20 02. O n a ppe al , Joh nsonc ha lle nge s th e suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort hi s
co nvi ct ion s, c er

ta in e vid enti ary ru lings b y the dis tr ic t c ourt, a nd the de nia l of his
m oti on t o su

ppr es s e vid en ce a nd his m oti on for co nti nuanc e. Joh nsona lso c ont en ds tha t t he di str i c t c ourt i nc or r e c t l y i ns t r

uc t e d t he j ur

y a nd t ha t hi s se nt ence w as im pr oper. H av ing r ev ie w ed the r ec or d, w e fi nd m or e than su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce to supp ort Jo hnso n’ s c onvi ct ion s f or pe rj ur y a nd s ec ur iti es f

ra ud. W e furthe r find no reversible er

ror in the district court’ s j ury instructio ns, evidentiary rulings and denial4

of Joh nson ’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s and m oti on f

or conti nuanc e. F ina lly , a ft er due
co nsi de ratio n, w e af

fi rm the m one y launde ri ng con vic tio ns set fo rth in Co unt s 18 -2 1 of the sup er se din g in dic tm en t; how ev er , f or the r ea sons se t fo rth be low , w e va ca te John son’ s m one y

launde ri ng c onvi ct ion s f or Co unt s 22 -2 8.

Mon ey L aunde ri ng W ithr es pe ct

to the m one y launde ri ng ch ar ge s se t fo rt h in Co unt s 18- 28 of

the supe rs ed ing ind ic tm en t, the j ur y c onvi ct ed John son of launde ri ng m or e than $1 0, 000 in proceeds from

securities fr aud in vio lation of 18 U.S. C. § 1957 (Counts 18-21 ), launde ri ng the pr oc ee ds o f se curi tie s f ra ud w iththe int en t t o c onc ea l su chunl aw fu l proceeds by

transfer ring them outsid e of the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1 956( a) (2 )( B) (i ) an d 2 (C ount s 22- 27) , an d co nspi ri ng to launde r the pr oc ee ds o f
se curi tie s f

ra ud w iththe int en t t o pr om ote suc h unl aw fu l a ct ivi ty in vio la tio n of

18 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i ) an d (h ) (Co un t 2 8)
. John son subm its that the e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t to s ust ai n hi s c onvi ct ion s fo r m on ey

lau nd eri ng . S uf

fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce i s an is su e th atwe rev ie w de novo to d et er m ine wheth er

“ a re as ona

ble j ur y , vie w ing the e vid en ce a nd a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s th er ef

ro m in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the g ov ern m en t c oul d f ind the de fe ndant[ ] gui lty as c ha rg ed be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v.5

Wil l i amso n , 3 3 9 F. 3 d 1 2 9 5 , 12 9 9 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) (i n t er n al qu o t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). We
a d d r e s s t h e d i f

f e r e n tmo n e y l au n d e r i n g p r o v i s i o n s s e p a r a t e l y.

18 U
. S. C. § 19 57 To obtain a conviction on a § 1957 char g e, the governm ent bears the burden of proving bey ond a reasonable doub t that John son “ knowingl y engaged or attem

pted to e nga ge in a m one tary

tr an sa ct ionin cr im ina lly de ri ve d pr ope rty

that i s of va lue gr eat er t ha n $ 10 ,00 0 a nd is de r i v e d f r om sp eci fie d u nl awfu l ac ti vi ty.” 18 U.S.C. § 19 57 ; s ee al so , Uni te d S ta te s v . Nol an , 22 3 F .3d 13 11 , 13 15 (1 1 t h C i r . 2 00 0) . A

“ m on et ary tra ns act io n” in cl ud es “ th e d ep os it , wit hd rawal , tra ns fer, o r ex ch an ge , . .

. of f unds or am one tary

ins tr um en t by , thr ough , or to a fin an ci al ins tit uti on . . . . ” 18 U
. S. C. § 19 57( f) (1 ). T he te rm “ spe ci fi ed unl aw fu l a ct ivi ty ” m eans any a ct or a ct ivi ty constitut i ng a n of

f e ns e u nd e r

1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 96 1( 1)
. 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 95 6( c ) ( 7) (A ). Se ct ion196 1( 1) (D ) incl ud es “ an y of fe nse inv olv ing
. . . f

ra ud i n th e sa le of
se cu rit ie s.” W ithr es pe ct

to his § 1957 conv ic tio ns (C ount s 18 -2 1) , Joh nsona rg ue s th at the
m er e re ce ipt

of fu nd s rai se d f

ro m his pr iva te sto ck

of fe ri ngs doe s no t a m ount

to
m one y launde ri ng and tha t the gov er nm en t f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t he e nga ge d in fi na nc ia l t ran sa ct ion s in vol vin g c ri m ina lly de ri ve d pr oc ee ds. A ft er r ev ie w ing theEx amples of these mi srepr esentations included st atements by J ohnson, or broke rs ac ting 1 on his behalf a

nd with his approval, that L EDS would “g o public , ” t h at L E DS was a n approve d contra ct shipper f

or the United St ates Postal Service , and that the investors’ money would be used only for ope ratingL EDS. The g overnme nt established at trial that L EDS never went public, it was never an appr oved contr act shipper for t h e P o stal Service, a nd that J ohnson took larg e sums of inv e sto r f un ds fo r h is o wn

pe rs on a l us e and

fo r o the r b us ine sse s. 6 record, we find the evidence presented at trial m ore than sufficient to supp ort John son’ s § 1 957 co nvi ct ion s. Joh nsondid m or e than m er el y “ re ce ive ” the pr oc ee ds fr om his bog us s toc k of

fe ri ngs. T he e vid en ce a t tri al e sta bli she d th at

Joh nson know ing ly

e nga ge d inse curi tie s f

ra ud ( i. e. , aspe ci fi ed un la wful a ct ivi ty ) w he n he
m ad e num er ous an d e xte nsi ve m isl ea din g and/ or fa lse re pr es en ta tio ns t o hu ndr ed s of inv es tors in o rd er

to ra ise c ap ita l f

or L E D S. T he j ur

y a lso he ar d e vid en ce f

ro m 1 Sp ec ia l Ag en t Ste phe n Robi nson , a cr im ina l i nve sti ga tor w iththe I RS , that Jo hnso n
co ntr oll ed ap pr oxi m at el y 80 fi na nc ia l ac co unt s, 25 o f w hic h w er e use d by Joh nson to d ep osi t, w ith dr aw , a nd transf er m ill ion s of

dol lars of f ra udul en tly o b t a i n e d i n v es tor funds. T hus, the evidence w as sufficient to prove that John son cond ucted financial transactions in excess o f $ 10,000 with illicitlyacquired funds that he knew represe nted the proceeds of unlawful ac tivity , and that he therefore violated 18 U. S. C. § 19 57.

18 U
. S. C. § 19 56( a) (2 )( B) (i )T h e m o n ey launder ing c oncea lment char g es set out in Counts 22-27 of the superse ding 2 indictment char g e Johnson wit h violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a) (2)( B) (i) and 2. 18 U. S.C. § 2 pr ov ide s th a t: 7 To e st abl i sht he o f

f e ns e o f m on e y l aun de r i ng c on c e a l m e nt b y u se o f an int er na tio na l transf

er , the gov er

nm en t m ust e sta bli sh tha t Johns on transf

er re d f unds fr om w ith in the U nit ed

S ta te s to apla ce out sid e of the c ountry , kno w ing thatthe funds w er e pr oc ee ds o f unlawfu l activi ty a nd i nte ndi ng t o c onc ea l or dis gui se the
na tu re, l oc at io n, s ou rce, o wne rs hi p, o r co nt ro l o f th e i l l i c it pro ceed s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 1956 (a )( 2) (B )( i)
. W ithr es pe ct to Co unt s 22 -2 7, Joh nsona rg ue s th at w hil e the evidence dem onstrated that fund s we re transferr ed to Luxem bourg from

the United St at es , the gov er

nm en t di d no t pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt e ith er

th at he
co ntr oll ed

or dir ec te d th e tr an sf

er s or tha t he a tte m

pte d to c onc ea l or

dis gui se the source of these m onies. W e agre e. Co unt 22 c ha rg es Joh nsonw ithm one y launde ri ng c onc ea lm en t ba se d upon a tr an sf er of $25 , 000 fr om

aJ& J a cc ount

in his m oth er ’ s nam e to an a cco unt in Luxem bourg , al s o in his m other’ s nam e. Counts 23 -27 charge him with m oney l au n d er i n g co n ce al m en tb as ed up o n fi v e t ra n s fe rs fr o m ei t h erLED S’ o r J o h n s o n ’s pe rs ona l a cc ount s inthe U nit ed S ta te s, e xclu si ve lyc ontro lle d by Joh nson , to his
m ot he r’s acco un t i n Lu xe m bo ur g. A s t o Co u n t2 2 , t h e C o u rt fi n d s t h e r ec o rd i n s u ff i ci en tt o s up p o rt t h e ju ry’s 2(a ) Wh oe ve r c omm its an o ff e ns e a g a ins t the Un ite d State s o r a ids , a be ts, c ouns e ls, c omm and s, ind

uc e s o r p ro c ur e s it s c omm iss ion , is punis ha ble a s a pr inc ipa l. (b ) Wh oe ve r w ill fu lly

c a us e s an a c t to be do ne wh ic h if dir e c tly pe rf

or me d b y him or ano the r w ou ld b e an o ff ens e against t

he Un ite d St a te s, is p un ish a ble a s a pr inc ipa l. On August 11, 1999, J ohnson transfe rre d $11,000.00 from his persona l N ations Ba nk 3 acc ount to his m other’s a ccount in L ux embourg . On J anuar y 14, 1998, J ohnson transfe rre d $7,500.00 from a L EDS acc ount at Nations Ba nk to his mot her’ s acco unt in Lux embourg . On Janu ary 28 , 1 99 8, John so n tr ans fe rr e d $ 7, 50 0. 00 fr om a L ED S accou nt a t N a tio ns B ank to h is mother’s a ccount in L

ux embourg . On Marc h 27, 1998, J ohnson transfe rre d $7,500.00 from a L EDS acc ount at Nations Ba

nk to his mot her’ s acc ount in Lux embourg
. Finally , on April 9, 1998, J ohnson tr ans fe rr e d $ 80 ,0 00 .0 0 f ro m a L ED S a c c ount a t N a tio ns B ank to h is m oth e r’ s a c c ount i n Lu x em b o urg. Our prec edent conce rningthe eleme nt of conc ealment in money launder ing c harg es re lates 4 a lmo st e xclu siv e ly

to 1 8 U .S. C. § 19 56 (a)(1 )( B )( i) (m akin g it unla wf ul t o k no wi ng ly c on du c t a 8 co nc lus iontha t Jo hnso n c au se d, dir ec te d, ind uc ed , o r in any

w ay c ontro lle d th e particular transfer by

his m o t h er fr om

her J&J ac count in the United State s to her
ac co unt in L uxe m

bour g. T he G ove rn m en t do es not poi nt t o, nor can w e loc at e, a ny
ev ide nc e sugg es tin g tha t John son ha d any inv olv em en t i n th is p ar

tic ular tr an sa ct ion
. A s s u c h , w e v a c a t e J o h n s o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r C o u n t2 2 o f

t h e s up e r s e din g ind ic tm en t. Counts 23-27 inv olve five separate tr ansfers of f unds to Luxem

bourg th at
or ig in at edou t o f two acco un ts in th e Uni te d Stat es th atJo hn so n c on tro ll ed
. As we 3 see it, the onlyissue r eq u i ri n g our consid eration is whether the evidence de m onstrate d th at

Joh nson int en de d to co nc ea l the or igi n of the il lic it funds w he n he tr an sf er re d th em to his m oth er ’ s ac co unt in L uxe m bour g. E vid en ce of

c onc ea lm en t 4financ ial transac tion with unlawfully obtained proce eds in a n eff ort to c oncea l or disguise the nature , loc a tio n, so ur c e , o wn e rs hip , o r c on tr ol o f t he ill ic it fu

nd s)
. Th e c on c e a lme nt langua g e is the same for both 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (1)( B) (i) and the offe nse at i s s u e i n this case, § 1956( a)( 2)(B )(i); the re fo re , w e loo k to c a se s a dd re ssi ng the iss ue of

c on c e a lme nt i n § 19 56 (a )( 1) (B )( i) c ha rg e s to a ssi st in our analy sis of the pre sent issue, as the only substantive differ ence betwee n these two off enses f or our p re se nt p ur

po se s is wh e the r t

he fu nd s w e re tr ans fe rr e d o ut o f t he Un ite d St a te s. 9 m ust be sub stantial. U nited States v. Blankensh ip, 382 F.3d 1110, 1130 (11th Cir. 2004 ). “ Merely

engaging in a t ra n s action with m oney whose nature has been concealed through ot her m eans is not in itself a cr im e . . . . If transactions are engaged in f or pr es en t pe rs ona l be ne fi t, a nd n ot t o c re at e the ap pe ar an ce of le git im at e w ea lth , the y do not vio la te the m one y launde ri ng sta tut e. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Ma

j or s, 196 F
. 3d 1206 , 121 3 ( 11th Cir
. 199 9) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. G ar ci a- E m anue l, 14 F
. 3d 1 469, 1474 ( 10th C ir
. 199 4) ); se e al so, U nit ed S ta te s v. Ma glu ta , 418 F. 3d 1166, 1176 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) ( “ [P ] ay

m en ts f or pe rs ona l be ne fi t ou t of

pr ev iou sly

launde re d pr oc ee ds d o not the m se lve s c onst itu te m one y launde ri ng u nle ss the y a re de sig ne d to c onc ea l the
na tu re o r so ur ce o f th e m on ey .”) (re lying on Majo rs , 19 6 F .3d at 1 21 3)
. E vid en ce to co nsi de r in d et er m ini ng whe the r a tr an sa ct ionw as de sig ne d to
co nc ea l i nc lud es , a m ong oth er thi ngs: statem ents by a d efendant probative of intent to conceal; unusual secrec y surroundin g the transaction; structuring the transaction in a w ay to avoid attention; d epositin g i l l eg al profits in the bank account o f a le git im at e busi ne ss; highly ir re gul ar f ea tur es of the tr an sa ct ion ; us ing third parties to conceal th e re al owner; a series of unusual financial m ove s c um

ula tin g inthe tr an sa ct ion ; or ex pe rt te sti m ony on pr ac tic es of10

cri m in al s. Garcia- Em anuel, 14 F. 3d a t 1475 -76; Maj ors, 196 F. 3d at 121 3 n. 18. A noth er im portant c onsi de ratio n is w he the r “ the m one y is be tte r co nc ea le d or

c onc ea la ble af te r the tr an sa ct ionthan be fo re . ” Bl an ke nshi p, 382 F
. 3d a t 11 30. Af ter considerable re vie w, we fin d the evidence insufficient to su pport John son’ s m one y launde ri ng co nvi ct ion s se t fo rth in Co unt s 23- 27 of the sup er se din g indictm ent. W ith respect to these five cou nts, t he governm ent presented no evidence of unu sua l se cr ec y , que sti ona ble str uc tur ing , hig hly

ir re gul ar f ea tur es of th e tr an sf er s,
or m ultip le m ovem en t s o f the sam e funds that assisted in concealing their original
sour ce . N oth ing about

th es e tr an sf

er s su gge sts that Jo hnso n a tte m pte d to a voi d de te ct io n o r at te nt io n. T he f ac ts o f oth er

c as es de ci de d by

thi s C ir cu it as sis t us in re ac hi ng o ur
co nc lus ion
. F ir st, in U nit ed S ta tes v. Magl uta , 418 F
. 3d a t 11 76, w e uphe ld a de fe ndant’ s m one y

launde ri ng c onvi ct ion pur suant t o 18 U
. S. C. § 19 56( a) (1 )( B) (i ) when the defe ndant facilitated m ultip le transfer s of illicitly obta i n ed cash betwee n dif fe re nt a sso ci at es be fo re ult im at el y tr an sf er ri ng the f unds to Is ra el a nd d ep osi tin g the m int o abank a cc ount

be ar ing af

ic tit iou s nam e, a ft er

w hic h th e de fe ndant pa id h is lawy ers w ith checks from that foreign account held in th e fa lse nam e. W e concluded tha t the de fe ndant w en t t o gr ea t l en gth s to str uc tur e the se hig hly

ir re gul ar tr an sa ct ion s11

in a ve il of se cr ec y to co nc ea l the f

ac t tha t he w as usi ng dru g pr oc ee ds t o c om pe nsa te his law y er s and this be ha vio r, the re fo re , sa tis fi ed the de fi nit ion of m one y launde ri ng under § 195 6(a)( 1)(B) (i). In Uni te d S ta te s v . Abb el l, 2 71 F.3d 12 86 , 1 2 9 8
- 99 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ), two at tor ne y de fe ndants pla ce d m one y int o p ris oner

c om m iss ar y a cc ount s or

ga ve indiv iduals cash on beha l f o f a l ea der of the Ca li Cartel, a drug sm uggl ing em

pire. T he e vid en ce a t tri al e sta

bli she d th at

the r ec ipi en ts of the ca sh eithe r w orke d for the drug cartel or w ere fam ily m em bers o f those em

ploy ees and that the m oney wa s pr ovi de d ine xc hang e fo r the ir sil en ce about

the c ar te l. T he de fe ndants e ith er f ir st
rece ived cash from

the cartel leader and then gave the m oney to the r ecipients, or they
w o u l df r o n tt h e c a s h a n dt h e n b i l l t h e l e a d e r f o r t h e a mo u n t s d i s b u r s e d
. Ei t h e r wa y, the defendants disb ursed the funds as if th ey we re the providers, n ot the cartel lea der. W e fo und tha t the e vid en ce sup porte d th e j ur y ’ s c onc lus ionthatthe c as h dis bur se m en ts w er e de sig ne d to c onc ea l tha t the cart el le ad er w as the sourc e of the se funds and th eref

ore am ount ed to a violation of § 1956(a)(1)(B) (i). U nit ed S ta te s v. Hass on , 333 F
. 3d 1 264, 127 5 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) , inv olv ed a j ew el ry sto re ow ne r w ho pr ep ar ed fa lse j ew el ry ap pr ai sa ls an d m isr ep re se nte d bo th his ow n qu al if

ic at ion s and the qua lity

of part ic ular j ew el s in an eff ort to se ll ite m s to
unsu spe ct ing cu sto m er s. I n a ff irm ing his c onvi ct ionf

or m one y launde ri ng p ur suant12

to § 1956 (a )( 1) (B )( i) an d (h ), w e re lie d on e vid en ce de m onstratin g th at the de fe ndant funne le d pr oc ee ds f

ro m his f ra udul en t sa le s t hr oughm ult ipl e ac co unt s be ar ing fi ct iti ous na m es an d open ed w ith fo rg ed doc um en ts, inc lud ing an ac co unt f or ashe ll
co rp or at ionin the I sle of

Man. W e furthe r co nsi de re d tha t he li ed to the F BI a nd the IR S w he n qu es tio ne d a

bout his r el at ion shi p w iththi s sh el l c or por at ion
. I d. Fi na lly , in Ma

j or s, 196 F. 3d at

121 1- 1214 , the f

ir st o pin ionin w hic h w e cl ose ly
ex am ine d th e co nc ea lm en t el em en t of a§ 19 56 c ha rg e, w e af

fi rm ed the de fe ndants ’
m one y launde ri ng c onvi ct ion s inase curi tie s fr au d cas e w he re the y sol d m ill ion s of dol lars of w orthl es s se curi tie s. T he ev ide nc e in Ma j or s de m onstrate d th at the de fe ndants tr an sf

er re d th e pr oc ee ds f

ro m th e s c h e m e b e tw e e nm

u l t i p l e c o rp or at e ba nk
ac co unt s se t up w ith m

ult ipl e sign at or ie s in an eff ort to m ak e it app ear tha t the f unds ult im at el y

de posi te d in to the de fe ndants ’ pe rs ona l a cc ount s were fr om ale git im at e
source. W e concluded that m ovin g the ill-gott en gains on m ulti pl e occasions betwee n dif fe re nt c or por at e ac co unt s, som e of w hic h w er e le git im at e busi ne ss a cc ount s, usi ng
m ult ipl e sig na tor ie s a m ount ed to ane ff ort t o conc ea l the na tur e or sourc e of

the pr oc ee ds unde r the te rm s of the statut e. I d. a t 12 14; se e al so, Bl an ke nshi p, 382 F
. 3d
a t 11 29
- 30 ( r e ve r si ng m on e y l aun de r i ng c on c e a l m e nt c on vi c t i on , c on c l ud i ng that de fe ndant’ s tr an sf

er of f unds be tw ee n tw o a cc ount s a t th e sam e ba nk, both be ar ing his na m e, w as ins uf

fi ci en t to es ta

bli sh the el em en t of co nc ea lm en t) ; U nit ed S ta te s v.13

T ha y er , 204 F
. 3d 1 352, 135 4- 55 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) ( af fi rm ing m one y

launde ri ng
co nc ea lm en t c onvi ct ionw he re de fe ndant funne le d pr of its f ro m a n il lic it sc he m e int o
va ri ous co rp or at e ac co unt s, som e of w hic h us ed

f ic tit iou s nam es , be fo re ult im at el y pla ci ng the m one y

int o he r pe rs onal a cc ount ); S ee ge ne ra lly , D ona ld F
. S am ue l, E le ve nthCi rc uit

Cr im ina l H an dboo k § 6 5 ( 2005 ) (p ro vid ing a n insi ght fu l
com pilation and analy sis of m oney laundering cases from

this Circuit). In the exam

ples set forth above, th e suspect transactions inv olved either
num erous transfers, m

ultip le acc ount s, f

ictitiou s accounts, or the use of third-parties to effec tuate the concealm en t o f the ac tual source of the m oney . In this case, h o we v er , J o h n s o ns i m

p l y t ra n s fe rr ed m o n ey fr o m h i s o wn ac co u n t s t o h i s m o t h er ’s
ac co unt
. T he se w er e si m pl e and str ai ght fo rw ar d banki ng transa ct ion s, e as ily discovered throug h a cursory reviewof Johnso n’ s bank accounts. See, United State s
v. E ste rm an , 324 F
. 3d 5 65, 572 (7 th Ci r. 2003 ) ( “ [C ] as es in w hic h m one y launde ri ng charges have n o t succeeded ar e ty pically sim ple transactions that can be followed with rela tive ease .
. . . ”); G arcia -E m anuel, 14 F. 3d at 147 5 (“[A]c t i o ns that are
m er el y sus pic iou s and d o no t pr ovi de sub stanti al e vid en ce of ade sig n to co nc ea l w ill
no t al on e su pp or t a c on vi ct io n.” ). O ur pr ec ed en t di sc uss ed

above de m onstrate s th at am one y

launde ri ng concealm ent convictio n pursuant to § 195 6 requires evidence of som ething m ore thanWe cer tainly do not overlook the fac t that Johnson tra nsfer red the funds into a fore ign ba nk 5 a c c ount. In U nit e d St a te s v . Po lic he mi, 21 9 F .3 d 6 98 , 7 07 (7 th C ir . 2 00 0), the Se ve nth Cir c uit aff irmed the D ef

en dants’ money

launder ing c oncea lment convictions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (2)( B) (i) base d, at least in par t, on evidence p re s en t ed by the g overnme nt that financia l tr ans a c tio ns are mor e dif

fi c ult to inv e sti g a te on c e fu nd s are mov e d thro ug h f

or e ig n a c c ounts . In th is case , howeve r, the g overnme nt does no t d i re ct u s t o any evidenc e in the re cord sug g esting that J ohnson’s transfe r of the mone y to a fore ign a ccount made the t ransa ctions more difficult to trace.

14 a si m ple t r a ns f e r o f f un ds b e t w e e n t w o a c c ount s, e a c h be a r i ng t he p a rt i e s’ c or r ect
na m e. T he re m

ust be som e evide nc e tha t the f unds a re m or e co nc ea le d a ft er the tr an sa ct ionis co m

ple te d th anbe fo re . D ec isi ons by our sis te r ci rc uit s als o su

ppor t this
co nc lus ion
. S ee G ar ci a- E m an ue l, 14 F
. 3d a t 14 78 ( hol din g th at tr an sf er ri ng f unds fr om an a cc ount

in the de fe ndant’ s nam e to an a cc ount of aCo lum bian na tio na l i n Fl or ida w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a m one y launde ri ng c onvi ctio n pu rs ua nt t o § 19 56( a) (1 )( B) (i )) ; U nit ed St at es v. D obbs , 63 F
. 3d 3 91, 397 ( 5thCi r. 199 5) (r ev ersing a m one y

launde ri ng c onvi ct ionund er § 19 56( a) (1 )( B) (i ) w he re the defendant deposit ed illicitly obtained funds into his wife ’ s bank ac count, after which she used the m oney

to pay ordinary hous ehold expenses, by finding th at this ty

pical and straight forwar d bankin g transaction failed to dem onstrate an i n tent to conceal the or ig in of

the m one y ). C onse que ntl y , vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost 5 fa vor ab l e t o t h e g o v e rn m e n t , w e f i n d o u r s e l v e s c o n s t r a i n e d t o c o n c l u d e t h atno
re as ona ble jury co ul d find tha t the tr an sa ct ion s se t f orth i n C ount s 23 -2 7 of

the supe rs ed ing ind ic tm en t c onst itu te d an e ff ort t o c onc ea l the na tur e or sourc e of

theTi le 18 U. S.C. § 19 56 (h ) pr ov ide s that “ [a]ny pe rs on wh o c on sp ir e s to c omm it a ny of fe ns e 6 define d in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those pre scribed f or th e o f f e n s e th e c o m m i s s i o no f

w h i c hw a s th e o b

j e c to f th e c o n s p i r a c y. 15 unl aw fu l pr oc ee ds, and w e ac co rd ing ly V A CA T E Joh nson ’ s c onvi ct ion s f or the se
co unt s.

18 U. S. C. §§ 19 56(a)(1)( A) (i) and (h) 18 U
. S. C. § 1956 (h ) m ak es it unl aw fu l to co nspi re to v iol at e an y pr ovi sio n of 6 §§ 1 956 or

195 7. T he j ur

y c onvi ct ed

Joh nson of c onsp ir ing to launde r the pr oc ee ds of se curi tie s f

ra ud wi th the int en t to prom ote suc h unla w fu l ac tiv ity in viol at ion of 18 U. S. C. § 195 6(a)( 1)(A )(i)( Count 28 ). To establish the offe nse of prom otion al m oney launde ri ng, the gov er

nm en t m ust de m onstrate that: (1 ) the de fend an t cond uc te d or at te m pte d to c ondu ct

af inanc ia l transa ctio n; ( 2) the de fe ndant k ne w that the f

unds inv olv ed in the tr an sa ct ionr ep re se nte d th e pr oc ee ds o f ill ic it ac tiv ity ( se curi tie s f

ra ud in the pr es en t c as e) ; ( 3) the f unds inv olv ed

w er e in f

ac t the pr oc ee ds o f unl aw fu l
ac tiv ity ; and (4 ) the de fe ndant co nduc te d the fi na nc ia l tr an sa ct ionw iththe int en t t o pr om ote the spe ci fi ed unl aw fu l ac tiv ity
. U nit ed St at es v. Carc ion e, 272 F. 3d 1 297, 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). T o ob ta in a

c onvi ctionf

or apr om oti ona l m one y

launde ri ng c onsp ir ac y , the
co nvi ct ionpr es en tly

a t i ssu e, the gove rn m en t be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng b ey ond aIn contra st, the conspirac y to commit securities fra

ud char g ed in Count 1, unlike the pre sent 7 conspirac y t o commit money launder ing, c harg ed Johnson, C ook, and other persons known a

nd unknown to the g rand jury with conspiring to commit securities fra ud. 18 U.S.C. § 371. 16 re as ona ble doubt tha t: (1 ) tw o or m or e pe rs ons ag re ed to co m m it a cr im e, in thi s c as e
a § 19 56( a) (1 )( A )( i) pr om oti ona l m one y launde ri ng vio la tio n; an d ( 2) that Jo hnso n, know ing the unl aw fu l pl an , vol unt ar ily j oin ed the c onsp ir ac y . U ni te d S ta te s v. Silvestri, 409 F. 3d 13 11, 1328 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). Count 28 charges on ly John son and his co-defendant, John Cook II (“ Cook”),
w i t h c o n s p i r i n g t o c o n du c tf i n a n c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s kn o w i n g t h a tt h e t r a n s ac tio ns inv olv ed pr oc ee ds f

ro m se curi tie s f

ra ud
. Co ok w as a cquitte d of a ll ch ar ge s. T he 7 gove rn m en t su

bm its tha t the e vid en ce o f

th i s c o n s p i r a cy

c en te re d aro und the pur ch as e by Co ok o f A rg us S ec ur iti es , I nc . , ( “ A rg us” ) a br oke ra ge f irm . Acco rd in g to the gove rn m en t, Joh nsonint en de d to fa ci lit at e the pur ch as e of A rg us s o th at

he a nd C ook
co ul d us e the br oke ra ge f irm to unde rwri te L E D ’ s st oc k sa le s. T o a cc om pli sh this goa l, the e vid en ce de m onstrate d th at Joh nsontr an sf

er re d c los e to $ 550, 000. 00 o f investo r funds from

a L ED S ac count to a J&J account on March 10, 1999
. On that
sam e day , Johnson ’ s m o t h er t ra n sferr ed that sam e am ount of m oney from the J&J
ac co unt to the ir a tto rn ey ’ s tr

ust a cc ount w itha m em o on the tr an sf er statin g th at

the funds w er e a loan f

or the pur ch as e of

A rg us. C ook the re af

te r pur ch as ed

A rg us w ith the f unds pr ovi de d by

J& J.In B onne r v . Ci ty of Pr ic ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6 ( 11 th C ir . 1 98 1) (e n b anc ), the El e ve nth 8 Circuit Court of Appea ls adopted as pr ece dent the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit issued bef

ore October 1, 1981. 17 Jo hnso n arg ue s th at

ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce e xis ts t o up hol d hi s c onvi ct ionf or the m oney

laundering cons piracy , bec ause the governm ent failed to establish th at Co ok, the onl y

a lle ge d c o- co nspi rator , kne w that the m one y use d to p ur ch as e A rg us
cam e fr om

LE DS
. Consequent ly , subm its Joh nson , the governm ent did no t prove that he a nd C ook ag re ed to launde r the pr oc ee ds o f the se curi tie s f ra ud i n or de r to p ro m ote the schem e. The governm ent responds that it is of no c onsequ ence that Cook w as acquitted of the se c ha rg es , a s th is C ir cu it ha s e xpl ic itl y rejecte d th e “ ru le of c onsi ste nc y ” in
co nspi ra cy

c as es, t hat r

ule be ing : a

c onsp ir ac y

c onvi ct ionc an not

stand a ga ins t on e de fe ndant whe n all oth er a lle ge d c o- co nspi rator s are a cquit te d. U nit ed S ta te s v. Andrew s, 850 F. 2d 15 57, 1560 (11th Cir. 1988 ) (e n banc) (citing He rm an v. U nited States, 289 F.2d 362, 368 (5th Cir. 1961 )). In t his Circuit, “ [c] onsis tent verdicts are 8 unrequired in joint trials for cons piracy : wher e all but on e of the char ged consp irators
are acquitted, the verdict a g ai nst the on e can stand.” Id. at 1561; see also, United St at es v. Wri ght , 63 F
. 3d 1 067, 107 4 ( 11th C ir. 1995) ( “ A cc or din gly , inc onsi ste nt verdicts [on conspi racy

ch ar ges] , whether provided byj uries or j udges, are not su bje ct to rev ers al m erel y

be cau se th ey

are i nc on si st en t.”)
.18

T he gov er

nm en t i s c er

ta inl y c or rect tha t the r

ule of c onsi ste nc y

ha s no ap pli ca bil ity in thi s Cir cu it. A cc or din gly , in a situ at ionsuc h a s th is o ne , w he re the j ury acquitted the onlyalleged co-conspi ra t o r in a m oney laundering cons piracy ch ar ge , the que sti on f

or th e court be co m es w he the r the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o supp ort a c onsp ir ac y

be tw ee n Jo hnso n and Cook
. Wri ght , 63 F. 3d at 1074
. Inthi s
ca se , w e fi nd the e vid en ce ins uf fi ci en t t o su sta in J ohns on’ s c onvi ct ion
. T he go vern m en t su

bm its tha t the e vid en ce e sta bli she d be y ond a re as ona ble doub t that John son and Coo k disg uised the pu rchase of Ar gus bym aking it app ear that Cook bo rrow ed the purchase m oney from Johns on’s m other, when, in fa ct, they used inv estor funds f

or the purchase and, there fore, the Ar gus transaction prom oted the ongo ing securities fraud. While we agree with the governm ent that the evidence
es ta bli she d th at

Joh nsondis gui se d th e re al sourc e of the fundi ng fo r the pur ch as e of A rg us, w e disa gr ee tha t it als o ade qua te ly de m onstrate d Cook’ s know le dge tha t the
m on ey cam e fro m

in ve st orfun ds an d n ot Jo hn so n’s m ot he r. Sp ec ia l Ag en t R obi nsonte sti fi ed that Jo hnso n tr an sf

er re d a lm ost

$55 0, 000. 00 fr om a L E D S ac co unt

to his m oth er ’ s J& J a cc ount on M ar ch10, 199 9, a ft er w hic h, on tha t sam e da y , Joh nson ’ s m oth er tr an sf er re d th e sa m e am ount

of m one y fr om

the J& J a cc ount

to a tr ust a cc ount so tha t C ook co uld

c om plet e th e pur ch as e of

A rg us. Be rk Be ck of f, the fo rm er ow ne r of A rg us, te sti fi ed tha t dur ing the ne got ia tio n f or the19

sa le of his f irm , Jo hn so n info rm ed

Be ck of f tha t C ook w oul d be pur ch as ing the
co m pa ny w ithaloan f

ro m Joh nson ’ s f

am ily
. I n c onne ct ionw ith the pur ch as e, Co ok needed to obtain a “ principal’ s” l icense from the Na tional Association of Securities D ea le rs . B ec kof

f te sti fi ed tha t disc los ur e doc um en ts pr ovi de d to the N A SD on b eh al f of Cook by

his attorney , Mr . G ritter, stated that Cook would enter i n t o a loan ag re em en t w ithJ& J Man agem en t C onsu lti ng t o f inanc e the pur ch as e of

A rg us. Fina lly , Co ok t es tif

ie d a t tri al
. D ur ing both di re ct a nd c ro ss- ex am ina tio n onthe subj ec t of A rg us, Co ok c onsi ste ntl y state d th at

he bor ro w ed the pur ch ase am ount from John son’s m other, Caterina, and that Joh nson told hi m she could afford to loan him the m oney

as a r esult of certain re al estate she owned in Canada and her
re la tio nshi p w ithaw ea lth y m an . A cc or din g to Co ok, Joh nsonne ve r ind ic at ed to him tha t any of th e bo rro w ed

f unds w oul d be c om ing f

ro m L E D S, nor

did a ny one e lse ind ic at e to C ook tha t L E D S ha d any f inanc ia l i nte re st i n A rg us. F urthe rm or e, Co ok te sti fi ed that a ft er he pur ch as ed

A rg us, he a lon e ow ne d and con tr oll ed the c om pa ny
an d t ha t J oh ns on ha d n ot hi ng to do wit h i ts op erat io ns . A ft er sub stanti al c onsi de ration an d ane xte nsi ve r ev ie w of the r ec or d onthi s top ic , w e fi nd n o e vid en ce e sta bli shi ng tha t C ook co nspi re d w ithJoh nsonto co m m it prom otion al m oney

laundering th rough th e acquisition o f A rgus Securities. In order t o sust ain John son’s conviction for this cons piracy , w e m ust find evid ence thatBe cause we r ever se the c onviction pursuant to a sufficie ncy of the e vidence revie w, we f ind 9 it unn e c e ssa

ry to a dd re ss Johns on ’s a dd iti on a l argume nt t hat the d istri c t c ourt

c on str uc tiv e ly amende d the superse ding in d i ct m en t and committed reve rsible er ror by char g ing the jury

under Count 2 8 th a t in or de r to e sta bli sh thi s c on sp ir a c y of

fe ns e , the y mus t fi nd that “ tw o or mor e pe rs on s, in s ome wa

y , c ame to a

mut ua l un de rs tand ing ” (e mph a sis su pp lie d) , a s th e ind ic tme nt c ha rg e d o nly J ohnson and Cook with being members of the conspira cy . 20 J o h n s o n an d Cook agreed to com m it m oney

laundering -- in this case, that they ag re ed to pur ch as e A rg us w ithpr oc ee ds fr om the se curi tie s fr au d in or de r to p ro m ote the unlawful schem e. Silvestri, 409 F.3d at 1328
. Clear ly , the evidence establish es tha t Jo hnso n us ed

ta int ed f unds f ro m the L E D S ac co unt s to f

ac ili ta te the pur ch as e of A rg us, but

the r ec or d do es not

sup port the a ddi tio na l c onc lus ionthat C ook kne w the
m one y c am e fr om

L E D S. W ith out

a ny e vid en ce that C ook ag re ed to or kne w that the tr an sa ct ionw oul d be str

uc tur ed in thi s m an ne r, w e fi nd tha t the gov er nm en t f ai le d to prove bey ond a reasonable doub t that John son and Cook agr eed to c omm it a cr im e, and as such, w e cannot upho ld the convi ction for con s p i ra cyto com m it m oney launde ri ng. T he re fo re , Joh nson ’ s c o n v i c tio n pu rs ua nt t o C ount 28 o f the sup er se din g in di ct m en t i s VACATED. 9

Ac cordingly , w e AFFIRM Joh nson ’ s c onvi ct ion s f or co ns pir ing to an d
co m m itt ing se curi tie s f

ra ud a s se t f orth in Co unt s 1- 15, pe rj ur y a s se t f orth i n C ount s 16-17 and m oney

laundering as set forth in C ount s 18-21. W e VA CA TE J o h n s o n ’s
co nvi ct ion s f

or c onsp ir ing to an d c om

m itt ing m one y

launde ri ng a s se t f

orth i n C ount sJ ohnson’s motion to disqualify his c ounsel is de nied for pur poses of this appea l with leave 10 t o re -f i l e i nth e d i s tri ctco urt p ri o r t o re -s en t en ci n g. 21 22- 28 and REMAND thi s c as e fo r re -s en te nc ing in lig ht o f thi s de ci sio n. 10