Opinion ID: 665876
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property

Text: Instruction 38 Defendants argue that the district court also erred in instructing the jury on the interstate transportation of stolen property charges. Section 2314 of Title 18 makes it a federal offense for any person to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud. 31 Defendants were charged on three counts with transporting three checks drawn on the account of Aerodyne and made payable to Midwest or Fisher. In charging the jury on these counts, the district court followed the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, with one small modification. The pattern instructions refer only to stolen property, as opposed to property stolen, converted or taken by fraud. The pattern instructions then incorporate the conversion and fraud aspects of the crime through the definition of stolen, which is defined to include any wrongful and dishonest taking of property with the intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership. 32 The district court followed these pattern instructions, except that it referred throughout the instruction to property stolen or taken by fraud, rather than merely to stolen property. 33 Section 2314 clearly criminalizes the interstate transportation of property taken by fraud, as well as of stolen property. We find no reversible error. 39 C. Constitutionality of Money Laundering Statute 40 Defendants contend that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1957, which prohibits engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property, violates the Fifth Amendment because it is constitutionally vague and overbroad. Because defendants' challenge does not involve the First Amendment, we review the statute as it was applied in this case. 34 As the Supreme Court has said, [a] plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. 35 41 Section 1957 makes it a federal crime for any person to knowingly engage[ ] or attempt[ ] to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity.... 36 The statute requires that the defendant know that the property is criminally derived, but it does not require that the defendant know that the property was derived from specified unlawful activity. 37 Criminally derived property is defined as any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense. 38 Thus, the government must prove that the defendant knew that the property was obtained from a criminal offense. In this case, the government proved that defendants deposited into their bank accounts funds that they had derived from their own criminal fraud activities. We find that this conduct is clearly proscribed by Sec. 1957. Accordingly, Sec. 1957 is constitutional as applied to defendants. 39