Opinion ID: 2832657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence – money laundering

Text: Caroni argues that the Government produced insufficient evidence to prove promotion money laundering. 9 To prove promotion money laundering, the Government must show not only that the money was the result of illegal activity but also that it was spent on promoting the illegal activity. Caroni argues that the evidence only showed that cash was deposited into bank accounts, using simple graphs prepared by the agent. Caroni is correct that our precedent requires the Government to show that the deposited money was intended promote the conspiracy. In United States v. Calderon, we reversed a conviction because the Government only showed that the Appellant knew that the money was ill-gained but never put on any evidence that the Appellant intended to do more than conceal the money. 169 F.3d 718, 721 (11th Cir. 1999). There was no evidence of how the money was to be spent once it was deposited or any evidence of how her actions furthered the underlying drug trafficking. Id. Our United States v. Martinelli, 454 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2006), decision approved a district court’s instruction that the jury had to find that the defendant engaged in the financial transaction with “the intent to promote the carrying on of such specified unlawful activity” and that “[t]he term with the intent to promote the 9 DiLeo adopts this argument 24 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 25 of 47 carrying on of the specified unlawful activity means that the defendant must have conducted or attempted to conduct the financial transaction for the purpose of facilitating or making easier or helping to bring about the specified unlawful activity as has been defined.” Id. at 1318. We stated that with such instructions, “the jury could not have found Martinelli guilty if it believed the financial transactions were undertaken for legitimate, non-fraudulent business expenses.” Id. Here, the jury was instructed with the same pattern jury instructions as in Martinelli. The agent who provided evidence about the monetary transactions testified that the funds at issue were used to pay overhead, rent, and malpractice insurance. Further, in Caroni’s deposition in a civil case, which was entered into evidence, he testified that they used the funds from Global Pensacola to pay “bills and whatnot.” Thus, the proceeds of the unlawful activity were deposited into numerous bank accounts and then spent to pay overhead, rent, malpractice insurance, bills, and whatnot – all expenses incurred to promote and continue the operation of the conspiracy to unlawfully dispense controlled substances. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence that the funds were spent to promote the illegal practice. 25 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 26 of 47