Opinion ID: 2967649
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count 15: Money Laundering

Text: Tri-City was indicted for knowingly engaging in a monetary transaction in excess of $10,000 in property derived from Najjar’s fraudulent activity. The indictment alleged that the laundering stemmed from Najjar’s sale of fraudulently titled automobiles to Tri-City. TriCity argues that [t]he deficiency in the government’s case on this Count is that there is no evidence that anyone acting on behalf of the corporation knowingly participated in a money laundering scheme under § 1957. (emphasis in original). Money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 is a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is . . . derived from specified unlawful activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). Title 18 U.S.C. § 1957(f)(2) 20 UNITED STATES v. NAJJAR defines criminally derived property as any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense. In order to support a conviction for money laundering, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly participated in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived proceeds. With respect to the knowledge element, which we understand to be TriCity’s real challenge to its conviction, the case was presented to the jury as follows: [T]he Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant knew that the property involved in the financial transaction was the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity. I instruct you that this element refers to a requirement that the defendant knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a criminal offense under state or federal law. I instruct you as a matter of law that mail fraud is a criminal offense. As I stated earlier, you may infer that the defendant had knowledge from circumstantial evidence or from evidence showing willful blindness by a defendant. . . . [T]he Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant knowingly engaged in an unlawful monetary transaction . . . . [T]he Government is not required to prove that the defendant knew the particular offense from which the criminally derived property was derived. However, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the transaction involved criminally derived property, which I remind you means any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained from a criminal offense. If you find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the transaction involved property derived from criminal offense, then this element is satisfied. The defendants did not object to this instruction. There is substantial evidence in the record that principals of TriCity knew that the vehicles they purchased from Najjar were proceeds UNITED STATES v. NAJJAR 21 of criminal activity. For example, the evidence established that Firyal Najjar, Tri-City’s president, was also an employee of Clinton Auto Sales. Firyal Najjar worked at a desk directly across from Basem Najjar in an office filled with stolen car parts throughout the period of investigation. Additionally, the Purchase and Sale Agreement transferring the vehicles to Tri-City noted the investigation by law enforcement officers dealings with the acquisition of certain parts and components of vehicles Maryland State Police investigation, currently pending. This agreement was signed by Firyal Najjar. Firyal Najjar was present during conversations between Jimmy Lee and Basem Najjar about the need to buy and strip a red Acura to create a legitimate excuse for their possession of another red Acura and its parts. During this conversation, Basem Najjar asked Lee to backdate receipts for other vehicle parts so that Najjar could forward them to his attorney. From this, and voluminous other evidence, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Tri-City knowingly participated in a money laundering transaction. Accordingly, we affirm Tri-City’s conviction on this count. We especially note that no issue as to the use of the mails is made here or was made at trial.