Opinion ID: 1026252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Watlington

Text: Watlington challenges his conviction of conspiracy to make materially false statements in Count I and his conviction of money laundering in Counts XIX-XXXII. 1. Conspiracy to Make Materially False Statements/Perjury Unlike McGlon, who challenged the conspiracy alleged in Count I with respect to all three objects, Watlington challenges only the third object, perjury. As stated, courts have consistently sustained guilty verdicts in multiple-object conspiracy charges when evidence demonstrates that the conspiracy furthered just one of those objects. Bolden, 325 F.3d at 492 (citing Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991); United States v. Hudgins, 120 F.3d 483, 487 (4th Cir. 1997)). Moreover, Watlington does not challenge his substantive convictions for bank and wire fraud. Because only one of those objects need be established as furthered by the conspiracy, and 18 Watlington challenges only one of three of the objects, we affirm the verdict in Count I. 2. Money Laundering As stated previously, the crime of money laundering under § 1956 is rather broad. Watlington argues that it was not West‘s intent to launder money but to distribute earned funds and that if West, as the principal, had no criminal intent, neither could Watlington as an aider and abettor. The foundational premise of Watlington‘s argument, mainly that West had no intent to launder money as defined in § 1956, is patently false. Channeling the funds for various schemes through West‘s attorney trust account is a clear attempt ―to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.‖ 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Moreover, according to West‘s records, Watlington directly received the laundered funds from West‘s accounts. Thus, we affirm the district court‘s denial of Watlington‘s motion for a judgment of acquittal for money laundering.