Opinion ID: 761781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Multiplicity of Money Laundering Charges

Text: 23 Each of the money laundering funds transfers identified in the superseding indictments was charged twice, once as domestic money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), and once as international money laundering, in violation of § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). 2 The defendants argue that it was multiplicitous to charge and convict them for both domestic and international money laundering based on the same funds transfers. We agree. 24 An indictment is multiplicitous if it charges a single offense in more than one count. United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 969 (2d Cir.1990). 25 To determine whether an indictment is multiplicitous, ... we inquire whether each of the provisions defining the offenses unambiguously authorizes punishment for a violation of its terms, whether the two offenses are sufficiently distinguishable from one another that the inference that Congress intended to authorize multiple punishments is a reasonable one, and if so, whether the legislative history evidences a contrary legislative intent. The statutes are examined under the Blockburger test to determine if each requires proof of a fact that the other does not. 26 United States v. Seda, 978 F.2d 779, 780-81 (2d Cir.1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 27 The government argues that the two offenses here are sufficiently distinguishable to satisfy the Blockburger test (annunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)) because the domestic money laundering count required proof that the defendants engaged in a financial transaction involving the illegal proceeds, whereas the international money laundering count required proof that defendants transport[ed], transmit[ted], or transfer[red] the illegal proceeds outside of or into the country. 28 Although the statutes may literally require different elements to be proved, we have previously held that statutory distinctions may not always satisfy Blockburger, and that sometimes the facts at hand may require a finding of multiplicity. See, e.g., United States v. Holmes, 44 F.3d 1150, 1154-56 (2d Cir.1995) (overturning structuring conviction as multiplicitous with money laundering conviction based on same transaction, despite two separate improper purposes); Seda, 978 F.2d at 781 (although in general we need only examine terms of the statutes, this approach is not always appropriate where statutes cover a broad range of activity). 29 In the context of this case, the financial transactions that the government had to establish in order to prove domestic laundering were the very same international transmittals of funds that were necessary elements of the international laundering counts. The only fact not common to both counts was the additional requirement of § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) that the funds transfers be international. Blockburger is not satisfied where the elements of one charged offense are subsumed within another charged offense. See, e.g., Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 694, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980) (defendant could not be convicted of both rape and felony murder where underlying felony was the rape, even though rape did not require proof of murder). In Seda, the court held that the defendant could not be convicted of both bank fraud and filing false loan applications because there the filing of false loan applications was simply a species of bank fraud. 978 F.2d at 782. Here, the international transfers are simply species of financial transactions. The district court confirmed this observation when, in response to a question from the jury, it stated that the domestic money laundering statute required a financial transaction, and that the international money laundering statute required that funds be transferred into the United States from abroad, and that otherwise the two crimes were the same. Accordingly, we hold that charging both domestic and international money laundering for these same transactions was multiplicitous. 30 Ordinarily, the appropriate remedy is to remand to the district court to vacate the multiplicitous counts and to adjust the sentencing accordingly. See Holmes, 44 F.3d at 1156 (proper remedy is to remand to district court to vacate multiplicitous counts and adjust sentence). However, as we will discuss below, the jury instruction on domestic money laundering contained substantial errors not present in the charge on international money laundering. As a result, we reverse Roz Ben Zvi's remaining convictions for domestic money laundering, counts 10 and 11, and those charges are dismissed.