Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 398.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

[09-11-00 13:24:47] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 321 (1998)

353

Kennedy, J., dissenting

Respondent told these lies, moreover, in most suspicious
circumstances. His luggage was stuffed with more than a
third of a million dollars. All of it was in cash, and much of
it was hidden in a case with a false bottom.

The majority ratiﬁes the District Court’s see-no-evil ap-
proach. The District Court ignored respondent’s lies in
assessing a sentence.
It gave him a two-level downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, instead of an
It dis-
increase for obstruction of justice. See id., at 62.
missed the lies as stemming from “distrust for the Gov-
ernment” arising out of “cultural differences.”
Id., at 63.
While the majority is sincere in not endorsing this excuse,
ante, at 337–338, n. 12, it nonetheless afﬁrms the ﬁne tainted
by it. This patronizing excuse demeans millions of law-
abiding American immigrants by suggesting they cannot be
expected to be as truthful as every other citizen. Each
American, regardless of culture or ethnicity, is equal before
the law. Each has the same obligation to refrain from per-
jury and false statements to the Government.

In short, respondent was unable to give a single truthful
explanation of the source of the cash. The multitude of lies
and suspicious circumstances points to some form of crime.
Yet, though the Government rebutted each and every fable
respondent proffered, it was unable to adduce afﬁrmative
proof of another crime in this particular case.

Because of the problems of individual proof, Congress
found it necessary to enact a blanket punishment. See
S. Rep. No. 99–130, p. 21 (1985); see also Drug Money Laun-
dering Control Efforts, Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs of the Senate Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, 101st Cong., 1st
Sess., 84 (1989) (former Internal Revenue Service agent
found it “ ‘unbelievably difﬁcult’ ” to discern which money
ﬂows were legitimate and which were tied to crime). One
of the few reliable warning signs of some serious crimes is
the use of large sums of cash. See id., at 83. So Congress