Opinion ID: 622903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mulitiplicity

Text: Luong next argues that Counts 64-66 are multiplicitious. Charges are multiplicitious if they charge a single offense in multiple counts. See United States v. UCO Oil Co., 546 F.2d 833, 835 (9th Cir. 1976). Luong contends that the purchase and deposit of two teller’s checks constitute a single financial transaction. However, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(3) defines a transaction as including “a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(3) (emphasis added). Each purchase of a teller’s 3 check constitutes a distinct financial transaction, as does a deposit. Therefore, charging the purchases and deposit in distinct counts was not multiplicitous.