Opinion ID: 608725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Money-Laundering Activities

Text: 25 The government presented several theories at trial as to how the defendants laundered their drug money. An attorney, Peter Newton, testified that LeMaux paid him $200,000 in cash for the wood rights to some property owned by Newton. Accountants also testified about $450,000 improperly added into the books of COSOL Marine, a boat company partially owned by LeMaux. The defendants other than LeMaux objected to the evidence and moved for severance. The district court overruled the objection and denied severance. The admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kessi, 868 F.2d at 1107. Likewise, denial of severance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cuozzo, 962 F.2d 945, 949 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 475 (1992). 26 In a conspiracy prosecution the government must prove both that the conspiracy existed and that each defendant was a member. United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.1992). Evidence of the alleged money-laundering activities was admissible to prove the existence of the conspiracy. United States v. Collins, 764 F.2d 647, 654 (9th Cir.1985). Because Silva, Inrig and LeMaux were all charged as part of the same conspiracy, the evidence was admissible against all. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying the motions to sever. 27