Opinion ID: 727854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Venue and Sufficiency of Evidence for Money Laundering

Text: 43 Cha argues that venue in the Western District of Washington was improper for the money laundering counts. Because the venue argument was not raised at trial, it is waived. United States v. Powell, 498 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 866 (1974). 44 Cha argues that his motion in district court for a change of jurisdiction should be construed as a motion for change of venue. Venue and jurisdiction are separate issues, however, dealing with separate rules and statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(f) (jurisdiction); Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 (venue). When the prosecutor treated Cha's motion as one of venue, Cha's counsel specifically stated, this is not an issue of venue, it's a resolution of jurisdiction. The trial court addressed the jurisdiction argument, but did not discuss venue.
45 Cha argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of money laundering because the government failed to prove that he had the intent to  'conceal or disguise' the nature, location, source or control of the proceeds of an unlawful activity. There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Vgeri, 51 F.3d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1995) (citation omitted). 46 The government produced evidence that Cha was engaged in drug dealing, and in complex financial schemes designed to launder that money from drug dealing. Cha did not report currency he took out of the United States to U.S. Customs agents, and did not report foreign bank accounts on his tax returns. Cha did not make deposits of more than $10,000 cash in United States banks, which have reporting requirements, but took $600,000 in United States currency to a Hong Kong bank, which does not have reporting requirements. After depositing money in the Hong Kong bank, Cha transferred most of it back to the United States for investment in real estate. 47 Cha's complicated transactions provided sufficient evidence that a rational jury could find that Cha intended to conceal or disguise the nature, location, or source of illegal proceeds. 48