Opinion ID: 2967751
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Money Laundering Issues

Text: In the common understanding, money laundering occurs when money derived from criminal activity is placed into a legitimate business in an effort to cleanse the money of criminal taint. The money laundering statute, however, as codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), proscribes a much broader range of conduct, specifically prohibiting four distinct types of money laundering activity. In order to contravene § 1956(a)(1), a defendant must, first of all, know that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of (ii) with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part— (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or (ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1). 18 Each of the six money laundering counts (Counts Thirty-Eight through Forty-Three), after describing the financial transaction, further alleged, in its penultimate paragraph, the following: The defendants engaged in the financial transaction with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, that is with the intent to further the mail and wire fraud scheme and artifices, . . . and knowingly [sic] that the financial transaction was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activity. UNITED STATES v. BOLDEN 17 some specified unlawful activity. If this proceeds element is satisfied, a money laundering violation occurs when a defendant conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction: (1) intending to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity (promotion money laundering); or (2) intending to engage in conduct contravening §§ 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code; or (3) knowing that the financial transaction is designed to conceal the nature of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity (concealment money laundering); or (4) knowing that the transaction is designed to avoid a state or federal transaction reporting requirement. The money laundering counts charged the Boldens with involvement in both promotion money laundering and concealment money laundering.19 The instructions advised the jury that, in order to convict on those charges, it was obliged to find the Boldens involved in both promotion money laundering and concealment money laundering.20 Accordingly, by its guilty verdict on the six money laundering counts, 19 A single count of an indictment may permissibly allege either one or more of the types of money laundering contained in § 1956(a)(1). See e.g., United States v. Booth, 309 F.3d 566, 572 (9th Cir. 2002) (When a statute specifies two or more ways in which an offense may be committed, all may be alleged in the conjunctive in one count.). 20 Although the instructions required the jury to find, in order to convict, that the Boldens had engaged in both promotion money laundering and concealment money laundering, such instructions were unnecessarily favorable to them. When an indictment alleges both promotion and concealment money laundering, a conviction can be premised on proof of either. See United States v. LeDonne, 21 F.3d 1418, 1427 (7th Cir. 1994) ([W]here a statute defines two or more ways in which an offense may be committed, all may be alleged in the conjunctive in one count in order to adequately apprise the defendant of the government’s intention to charge him under either prong of the statute.); United States v. Street, 66 F.3d 969, 974 (8th Cir. 1995) (same). 18 UNITED STATES v. BOLDEN the jury found that they had each engaged in both types of money laundering. The Boldens maintain that their money laundering convictions must be vacated for two reasons. First, they contend that the financial transactions on which their money laundering convictions are based, i.e., the Industrial Check Transactions, did not involve the proceeds of the mail and wire fraud that constituted the specified unlawful activity alleged in the indictment. Second, they assert that the Industrial Check Transactions failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of either promotion money laundering or concealment money laundering. For the reasons explained below, we reject each of these contentions.