Opinion ID: 153171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 5 Olson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. He argues that the evidence does not establish that there was an agreement between the alleged co-conspirators to launder money or that money laundering occurred. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find Olson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 582 (10th Cir.1994). 6 Olson was charged with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Those sections provide: 7 (a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity-- 8 (A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or 9