Opinion ID: 701257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transacting in Criminally Derived Property

Text: 31 The Government charged Wynn with three counts of transacting in criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1957(a) (1988), the sister provision of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956. Section 1957(a) provides, in relevant part, that 32 Whoever ... knowingly engages or attempts 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, shall be punished.... 33 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1957(a). Like section 1956, this provision requires the Government to prove that the property involved in the transaction was derived from a specified unlawful activity, while the defendant need know only that the property was acquired illegally. It differs from section 1956 in two critical respects: It requires that the property have a value greater than $10,000, but it does not require that the defendant know of a design to conceal aspects of the transaction or that anyone have such a design. Due to the omission of a design to conceal element, section 1957 prohibits a wider range of activity than money laundering, as traditionally understood. See Emily J. Lawrence, Note, Let the Seller Beware: Money Laundering, Merchants and 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1956, 1957, 33 B.C.L.Rev. 841, 865-66 (1992). Thus, a section 1957 violation is easier to prove, in this respect, than a section 1956 violation. 34 The Government presented undisputed evidence that on December 11, 1987, Edmond made a payment of $15,166.50 to Linea Pitti and that the same amount was deposited, in cash, in the store's bank account on the same day. Wynn does not contend that the money involved was derived from his lawful sale of merchandise as opposed to from Edmond's illegal activities. Nor does he argue that a bank deposit fails to constitute a monetary transaction in criminally derived property prohibited by the statute. He questions only the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that he knew the money was criminally derived. We believe that Wynn's course of dealings with Edmond and Lewis dating back to March 1987--in which they made cash purchases of nearly a half-million dollars worth of merchandise and he attempted to disguise the source of that cash--supports the jury's inference that Wynn knew or was willfully blind to the fact that the cash involved in this particular transaction was criminally derived.