Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 49

524us1$71P 02-16-99 22:29:48 PAGES OPINPGT

4

UNITED STATES v. CABRALES

Opinion of the Court

from the unlawful distribution of cocaine in Missouri. The
defendant, respondent Vickie S. Cabrales, is not alleged to
have transported funds from Missouri to Florida. Nor is she
charged, in the counts before us, with participation in the
Missouri cocaine distribution that generated the funds in
In accord with the Court of Appeals for the
question.
Eighth Circuit, we hold that Missouri is not a proper place
for trial of the money-laundering offenses at issue.

I

In a three-count indictment returned in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Ca-
brales, as sole defendant, was charged with the following of-
fenses: conspiracy to avoid a transaction-reporting require-
ment,
in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 371, 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii)
(Count I); conducting a ﬁnancial transaction to avoid a
in violation of § 1956
transaction-reporting requirement,
(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Count II); and engaging in a monetary transac-
tion in criminally derived property of a value greater than
$10,000, in violation of § 1957 (Count III). The indictment
alleged that, in January 1991, Cabrales deposited $40,000
with the AmSouth Bank of Florida and, within a week’s
span, made four separate withdrawals of $9,500 each from
that bank. The money deposited and withdrawn was trace-
able to illegal sales of cocaine in Missouri.

Cabrales moved to dismiss the indictment in its entirety
for improper venue. On recommendation of the Magistrate,
the District Court denied the motion as to Count I, the con-
spiracy count, based on the Government’s assertions that Ca-
brales “was present in Missouri during the conspiracy, lived
with a conspirator in Missouri, and participated in various
in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
activities in Missouri
App. to Pet. for Cert. 11a, 14a–15a. Also on the Magistrate’s
recommendation, the District Court granted the motion to
dismiss Counts II and III, the money-laundering counts, be-
cause the deposit and withdrawals occurred in Florida and