Opinion ID: 172187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: I. The Money Laundering Conspiracy Convictions

Text: On Count 1, the jury convicted Aguilera-Meza under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) of conspiring to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A), (B). On Count 5, the jury convicted Aguilera-Meza under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) of conspiring to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(B). Aguilera-Meza argues that the government did not prove all of the elements necessary for a conviction under these statutes. As a question of law, we review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Rahseparian, 231 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 2000) (applying this standard in the context of a money laundering conviction). In applying this standard, “we examine, in a light most favorable to the government, all of the evidence together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom and ask whether any rational juror could have found the essential 5 elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). Section 1956(h) incorporates the other money laundering statutes, by providing: “Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section . . . shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). To convict Aguilera-Meza under this statute, the government was required to prove: “(1) the existence of an agreement (2) to break the law, (3) an overt act (4) in furtherance of the conspiracy’s object, and (5) that he willfully entered the conspiracy.” United States v. Shepard, 396 F.3d 1116, 1123 (10th Cir. 1992). Here, the “law[s]” that the jury found that Aguilera-Meza agreed to “break” were 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A), (B) and § 1956(a)(3)(B). Section 1956(a)(2) provides: Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States— (A) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or (B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part— (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or (ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law, shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in 6 the transportation, transmission, or transfer whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For the purpose of the offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by proof that a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true. Id. § 1956(a)(2). Thus for Count 1, the government was required to prove that Aguilera-Meza agreed to (1) transfer or attempt to transfer funds (2) from the United States (3) to a place outside of the United States (4) “with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity”; or “knowing that the . . . funds involved in the . . . transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such . . . transfer is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” Id.; Cuellar v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1994, 2002 (2008). In pertinent part, § 1956(a)(3) provides: Whoever, with the intent . . . (B) to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity . . . conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section. 7 Id. § 1956(a)(3). Thus for Count 5, the government was required to prove that Aguilera-Meza entered into an agreement (1) with the intent to (2) “conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property” that (3) he believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity (4) by conducting a financial transaction (5) involving property that was represented to be the proceeds of, or used to conduct, specified unlawful activity. Id. First, Aguilera-Meza contends that the government failed to connect the money laundering in Count 1 with an underlying “specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A), (B). Aguilera-Meza asserts, “no financial transaction was separate from and in addition to the underlying crime of unlicensed money transmitting affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960(2) also charged against [Aguilera-Meza].” Aplt. Br. at 22. We reject this argument. The evidence at trial indicates that the specified unlawful activity necessary to support Aguilera-Meza’s convictions for money laundering was drug trafficking. Aguilera-Meza’s briefing repeatedly acknowledges this. 1 Aguilera- 1 We note that in Aguilera-Meza’s reply brief, he alters this argument, conceding that “[t]he trial court record is replete with inferences and innuendoes that some third parties were dealing in drugs, but [now arguing] there is no direct evidence of any particular drug transaction, the proceeds of which ended up in the hands of Aguilera-Meza, and which were then laundered.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 16. To the extent this argument first appears in Aguilera-Meza’s reply brief, we do not consider it. See United States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923, 949 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to address new arguments first raised in a reply brief). To the extent (continued...) 8 Meza testified that he was not involved in drug trafficking, noting that he does not “even drink or smoke.” R. Vol. 2, Dec. 6, 2007 at 62. Consequently, the underlying crime, drug trafficking, was separate from the crimes of unlicensed money transmitting affecting interstate or foreign commerce and money laundering. Aguilera-Meza’s reference to a “merger problem” is without merit. Aplt. Br. at 24; see United States v. Kennedy, 64 F.3d 1465, 1477 (10th Cir. 1995) (“All that is required to violate [§] 1956 is a transaction meeting the statutory criteria that takes place after the underlying crime has been completed.”). Second, Aguilera-Meza contends that the funds he transferred to Mexico were not “proceeds” under the money laundering statute, citing United States v. Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008). Aguilera-Meza argues that the funds he transferred were to buy additional drugs, and were therefore not profits. Aplt. Br. at 24, 28. Even if we were to agree that Santos holds that under § 1956 “proceeds” should be defined by “profits” and not “receipts,” this distinction is of no help to Aguilera-Meza. Santos, 128 S. Ct. at 2025. His argument is countered by an example the Supreme Court provides in Santos: “For example, someone accepting 1 (...continued) this argument merits consideration, none of the identified elements of conspiracy to commit money laundering requires evidence of a specified instance of the unlawful activity. Instead, the elements require evidence that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity. 9 receipts from what he knows to be a long-continuing drug-dealing operation can be found to know that they include some profits. And a jury could infer from a long-running launderer-criminal relationship that the launderer knew he was hiding the criminal’s profits.” Santos, 128 S. Ct. at 2029. The evidence presented in the present case established that Aguilera-Meza repeatedly accepted receipts from persons he knew were drug dealers, creating the inference that at least some of the funds included profits. Accordingly, the distinction between proceeds and receipts discussed in Santos does not support Aguilera-Meza’s position. Third, Aguilera-Meza argues that the evidence was insufficient to show an intent to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity. 2 In United States v. Shepard, we identified evidence potentially probative of an intent to conceal as including: “unusual secrecy surrounding the transaction; structuring the transaction to avoid attention; depositing illegal profits in the bank account of a legitimate business; highly irregular features of the transaction; using third parties to conceal the real 2 Aguilera-Meza explicitly argues that “[t]he statute is clear that it requires proof that the purpose of the transportation or transfer was to cleanse illicit funds of their appearance of taint with criminality”; “creating the appearance of legitimate wealth is the criminal conduct targeted by the money laundering statute.” Aplt. Br. at 25–26. This language does not appear in the statute. We do not find Aguilera-Meza’s efforts to include this requirement into the statutorilylisted elements to be persuasive. Cuellar v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1994, 2000–01 (2008) (similarly rejecting the inclusion of a “legitimate wealth” element). 10 owner; [and] a series of unusual financial moves cumulating in the transaction . . . .” 396 F.3d 1116, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). Aguilera-Meza concedes that “[t]he evidence before the lower court specifically indicates that [Aguilera-Meza] took money into his business, deposited the funds into his own account, then transferred money to other accounts, some of them fictitious, or caused money to go to Mexico by check cashing.” Aplt. Br. at 30–31. This concession acknowledges that he deposited the funds in the bank account of a “legitimate” business, and used third parties to conceal the real owner. Moreover, the use of fictitious accounts indicates structuring the transaction to avoid attention, and is a highly irregular feature of the transaction. See Shepard, 396 F.3d at 1123 (noting that the use of fake names demonstrates an intent to conceal or disguise the illegal funds because it structures the transaction “in a way to avoid attention,” “use[s] third parties to conceal the real owner,” and “involve[s] highly irregular features”).