Opinion ID: 202867
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Money Laundering Counts

Text: Portalla maintains that the government adduced insufficient evidence to support his conviction under the two money-laundering counts because Monteiro never told him that the $600 that he used to purchase the four throwaway cell phones constituted drug proceeds, nor was that sum of money sufficient to infer any such an illegal provenance. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (requiring that the government prove, inter alia, that the property used in the money-laundering transaction be represented as drug proceeds). We disagree. The government need not establish that Monteiro expressly stated that the $600 constituted drug proceeds, provided that the totality of the circumstances, as revealed by all the evidence, would lead a reasonable person to draw that conclusion. See United States v. Castellini, 392 F.3d 35, 46 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Kaufmann, 985 F.2d 884, 893 (7th Cir. 1993). Monteiro presented himself to Portalla as a drug dealer, expressed his interest in purchasing throwaway phones under false names, boasted that he could afford courtside seats for the Celtics, and expressly admitted to Portalla that he had considered laundering money through the Carrillos' pool hall. Under these circumstances, the jury rationally could find that Portalla reasonably would have inferred that Monteiro was plowing his illicit drug profits back into his drug business. Cf. id. at 893-94 (finding sufficient evidence on representation element where car buyer stated he was a drug dealer, and that he wanted to buy the car with cash, using a false name). We accordingly affirm Portalla's money-laundering convictions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a). Affirmed.