Opinion ID: 11538
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: landerman

Text: 45 Similarly, Ottesen's testimony against Landerman appears significant, if not necessary, to the jury's verdict. Ottesen testified that Landerman basically told [Cushman] how to set up the corporations to funnel the money through and things of that nature, and he tried to get the Hartford set up with a joint venture where we weren't security. He also testified that when Landerman first started coming to the Bedford office Landerman would be standing up on the sales floor and cringe and tell people that you can't be saying that [to the potential investors]. However, [a]s time passed, [Landerman] got a little bit more lenient toward misrepresentations and would just shake his head and laugh about any misrepresentations he overheard the sales brokers make. Landerman admitted to Ottesen that the money used to start Exciting Tans was funneled out of Hartford. Finally, Ottesen testified that Landerman was aware that they were using in-house references. 46 Other witnesses did testify that Landerman structured the financial transactions that form the basis of the two money laundering convictions. Of course, in order to constitute money laundering, the proceeds involved in the transactions must have been from the mail and wire fraud offenses, and the most damning testimony regarding Landerman's knowledge of the fraud came through Ottesen. We therefore cannot conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.