Opinion ID: 751779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Concealment Counts.

Text: 26 Counts 18, 19, 20 and 21 charged that the Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). In order to sustain a conviction under that provision, the government must prove: (1) the defendant conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction having at least a de minimis effect on interstate commerce or involving the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which have at least a de minimis effect on, interstate commerce, see Peay, 972 F.2d at 74; (2) the property that was the subject of the transaction involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; (3) the defendant knew that the property involved represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity; and (4) the defendant knew that the transaction was designed in whole or part, to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of the unlawful activity. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (c). 27 The government premised the Concealment Counts on the repayments from the Defendants' non-medical businesses to MPS, and the cover-up of the source of those repayments on MPS's books. According to the Defendants, the government's offer of proof on the Concealment Counts was deficient as to the first, second and fourth elements. Our review of the evidence reveals that sufficient evidence supports each of these elements. 28 With respect to the first or interstate commerce element, the record establishes that after each repayment, the Defendants faxed a Loan Status Report from MPS in Virginia to HLI in Maryland that reported the receipt of the repaid funds, but failed to disclose any source of the repaid funds. By failing to disclose the true source of these funds, each Loan Status Report gave HLI the false impression that the funds originated from legitimate medical businesses as required by the written loan agreement between MPS and HLI. Accordingly, we are more than satisfied that the repayments had at least a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. 29 With respect to the second element, the Defendants' convictions on Counts 18 through 21 will stand as long as the jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, could infer that the transfers into MPS's account involved wire fraud proceeds for purposes of § 1956(a)(1). To do so, the government need not prove that all of the money involved in the transfers constituted the proceeds of wire fraud; it is sufficient if the government proves that at least part of the money represented such proceeds. See, e.g., United States v. Cancelliere, 69 F.3d 1116, 1120 (11th Cir.1995); Jackson, 935 F.2d at 840; cf. United States v. Moore, 27 F.3d 969, 976-77 (4th Cir.1994) (stating that 18 U.S.C. § 1957 does not require the government to trace origin of funds from sale of assets that were purchased with commingled illegally-acquired and legally-acquired funds). Furthermore, when the funds used in a particular transaction originated from a single source of commingled, legally- and illegally-acquired funds, it may be presumed that the transacted funds, at least up to the full amount originally derived from crime, were the proceeds of the criminal activity. Cf. Moore, 27 F.3d at 976 (holding same in context of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, the sister money laundering statute to 18 U.S.C. § 1956). 30 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that substantial evidence supports that the repayments represented, in part, the proceeds of the Defendants' wire fraud. The uncontradicted evidence at trial showed that each repayment derived from a commingled account, and that the amount of the repayment was less than the amount originally transferred as part of the Defendants' wire fraud. Therefore, the jury was entitled to presume that the repayments constituted the proceeds of the Defendants' wire fraud. Cf. Moore, 27 F.3d at 976-77. 31 With respect to the fourth element--that the Defendants knew the transactions were designed, in whole or part, to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of the unlawful activity, see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)--the Defendants argue there was insufficient evidence of structuring. See United States v. Gilliam, 975 F.2d 1050, 1056 (4th Cir.1992) (stating that in a prosecution under § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), the government must prove a specific intent to structure a transaction so as to conceal the true nature of the proceeds.). According to the Defendants, their doctoring of MPS's books to conceal the source of the funds transferred cannot count as their having structured the transactions because the transactions (the transfer of funds between bank accounts) had already been completed. 32 The Defendants' argument takes an overly narrow view of the term transaction as found in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1). Section 1956 defines transaction, in relevant part, as including a ... transfer, delivery, or other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution includes a deposit, ... transfer between accounts, ... or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(3). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, supports the jury's finding that the Defendants had a specific intent to structure their transactions so as to conceal or disguise the true nature and source of the repayments. The transactions here involved the Defendants' transfer of funds between bank accounts with the knowledge that the receiver of the funds, MPS, would doctor the books to conceal the true nature and source of the funds. The jury was entitled to infer that the Defendants would not have transferred the funds unless they knew that MPS would doctor the books upon receipt of the funds, and thus was entitled to find that the Defendants structured the transactions so as to conceal their true nature and source. 33 For these reasons, we reject the Defendants' challenge to the sufficiency of the government's proof with respect to the first, second and fourth elements on the Concealment Counts. In sum, we reject the Defendants' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their money laundering convictions.