Opinion ID: 203973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proceeds of an Unlawful Activity

Text: In arguing that the evidence presented at trial did not establish that he knew the unlawful origin of the money transferred in the August 4, 2003 transaction, Cedeño points out that he did not discuss the money's origin during any of the telephone calls with Ortiz, and that the ICE investigation did not reveal the origin of the money. Cedeño also argues that his connection with the money laundering scheme was attenuated; Romero testified that he was uncertain if he had spoken with Cedeño, and that the Toloza family was unfamiliar with him. A conviction for money laundering does not require that the defendant know the precise origin of the property transferred, but only that it came from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a felony under State, Federal, or foreign law. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(1) (defining the phrase knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity); accord Corchado-Peralta, 318 F.3d at 258. Here, as Ortiz described, Cedeño recognized and used code words to identify the intended recipients of the money, Romero and Ortiz. In particular, he used the expression documents to conceal the fact that he was delivering currency. Cedeño agreed to avoid a drop off location that was hot, or too close to police activity. During the drop off Cedeño became excited and kind of scared by the presence of the police in the parking lot. He told Ortiz that they should get out of here. When Ortiz finally convinced him to transfer the money despite the police presence, Cedeño asked Ortiz, Can I do it now?, further reflecting his desire to avoid police detection. Cedeño knew that the plastic bag he transferred contained $200,000 in mixed small-denomination bills. Romero testified at trial that only a trusted person, an employee[ ], part of the chain, would be assigned to deliver that much money, since others would steal it. The jury heard a phone call in which Cedeño told Ortiz that he had spoken with Ricardo, Romero's money-laundering alias. From this evidence, a rational jury could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Cedeño knew that the money came from some form of unlawful activity. The jury could have reasoned that Cedeño's use of code words and his concern about police detection reflected an awareness that the currency he was transferring derived from unlawful activity. This inference would have been strengthened by the large amount of currency, the small-denomination bills, their storage in a plastic bag, and the transfer in a parking lot, all of which the jury could have reasonably regarded as suggesting unlawful activity. See Frigerio-Migiano, 254 F.3d at 33-34 (noting evidence that defendant witnessed deliveries of large amounts of small-denomination cash and issued coded receipts for these deliveries). Lastly, from Romero's testimony that only a trusted person would make such a delivery, and Cedeño's statement that he had spoken to Ricardo, the jury could have reasoned that it was likely that Cedeño knew something about the unlawful nature of the Toloza family's activities and that the transferred money was in payment for those activities.