Court Opinion

ID: 9486947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:04:30.858396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:01.551936
License: Public Domain

COFFEY, Circuit Judge,
with whom EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, joins,
dissenting.
I join the dissents of Judges Easterbrook and Ripple but write separately to emphasize what I believe is the majority’s misinterpretation of Jacobson v. United States, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992), and the majority’s favorable interpretation (to the defendant) of the factual record.
“[A] valid entrapment defense has two related elements: government inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63,108 S.Ct. 883, 886-87, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988). “Predisposition, ‘the principal element in the defense of entrapment,’ ... focuses upon whether the defendant was an ‘unwary innocent’ or, instead, an ‘unwary criminal’ who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime_” Id. (citations omitted).1
“ ‘It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises.’ ” Jacobson, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1540 (quoting Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441, 53 S.Ct. 210, 212, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932)); United States v. Casanova, 970 F.2d 371, 375-77 (7th Cir.1992) (merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime is not enough to establish entrapment) (citing Jacobson). “In their zeal to enforce the law, however, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Id. (quoting Sorrells, 287 U.S. at 442, 53 S.Ct. at 212-13).
“The question of entrapment is generally one for the jury, rather than for the court.” Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63, 108 S.Ct. at 886; see also United States v. Cenante, 958 F.2d 175, 178 (7th Cir.1992) (“[wjhether [defendant] was entrapped is a question of fact for the jury”) (emphasis added). The majority has cast aside the ruling case law enunciating that “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and must affirm the conviction if we find that a rational trier of fact could have found the requisite predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Blackman, 950 F.2d 420, 423 (7th Cir.1991) (emphasis added).
The majority argues that entrapment is “the apprehension of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who, if left to his own devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law.” Ante at 1199 (quoting Jacobson, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1543). The majority goes on to conclude that this quoted language “clarified the meaning of predisposition. Predisposition is not a purely mental state, the state of being willing to swallow the government’s bait. It has positional as well as dispositional force. The dictionary defini*1206tions of the word include ‘tendency’ as well as ‘inclination.’ The defendant must be so situated by reason of previous training or experience or occupation or acquaintances that it is likely that if the government had not induced him to commit the crime some criminal would have done so” The majority claims the defendant must be “in a position without the government’s help to become involved in illegal activity.” And then the majority distinguishes the public official who is in the position to take bribes, the drug addict who is in the position to deal drugs and the gun dealer who is in the position to engage in illegal arms sales from the instant defendants who are not in the position to commit a criminal offense absent the “government’s help.”2
The majority stakes its decision on the fact that the defendants were not in the position to commit the crime without the government’s help. The record fails to support the majority’s contention, thus I am forced to disagree.
In the case before us, the majority reads the statement at the end of Jacobson, (“[w]hen the Government’s quest for convictions leads to the apprehension of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who, if left to his own devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law, the courts should intervene”), much too broadly. The Supreme Court in Jacobson declared “[h]ad the agents in this case simply offered petitioner the opportunity to order child pornography through the mails, and petitioner — who must be presumed to know the law — had promptly availed himself of this criminal opportunity, it is unlikely that his entrapment defense would have warranted a jury instruction.” Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1541 (citing Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 66, 108 S.Ct. 883, 888, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988)). Thus, the Supreme Court viewed Jacobson as an “otherwise law-abiding citizen” who was entrapped because he was “the target of 26 months of repeated mailings and communications from Government agents and fictitious organizations” that excited his interests in illegal and sexually explicit materials, id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1541. The Supreme Court says nothing in Jacobson about the defendant not being in the position to commit the criminal act.3 Jacobson is significant not because it limits the potential targets of government sting operations to wmlaw-abiding citizens, but because it limits the measures which the government may take in attempting to induce an otherwise law-abiding citizen to violate the law, i.e., twenty-six months of persuasion is too much. See Jacobson, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1543 (“[t]he evidence that petitioner was ready and willing to commit the offense came only after the Government had devoted 2]£ years to convincing him that he had or should have the right to engage in the very behavior proscribed by law”). The question before us, then, is whether the government’s contact with Pick-ard and Hollingsworth, which the majority holds caused them to run afoul of the law, was comparable to the twenty six months of contacts with Jacobson. As the facts make clear, the present case and Jacobson bear little, if any, resemblance.
The majority creates a fictional image and hypothesizes about two allegedly “innocent,” would-be international financiers, yet the testimony offered at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the government as we must, Blackman, 950 F.2d at 423, portrays the defendants in a much less complimentary light. The U.S. Customs Agent, John Thomas Rothrock, initially became interested in the defendants when he noticed an ad in the U.S.A. Today offering an “international class A banking license” for sale. Rothrock called the number listed in the ad and left his undercover name “Tom Hindi” and his *1207phone number.4 When the call was not returned, Rothrock called and left a second message. Pickard returned Rothrock’s second call and at trial testified as follows concerning their first substantive discussion:
[Prosecutor] “Isn’t it also true, Dr. Pick-ard, that the very first substantive phone discussion you and the agent ever had was May 18, 1990?”
[Pickard] “Well — I remember very little of the substance of the first, which were — I agree it was the second conversation we ever had; yes, sir.”
[Prosecutor] “Isn’t it also true, Dr. Pick-ard, that was the first time that buying cashier’s checks and money orders with the cash was ever discussed between you, the two of you?”
[Pickard] ‘Tes, sir, I would say that’s accurate.”
[Prosecutor] “You would also agree, would you not, Dr. Pickard, you were the one who brought up the subject?”
[Pickard] ‘Tes, sir.”
Significantly, by Pickard’s own admission at trial, it was Pickard, whom the majority makes out to be a law-abiding “tyro,”5 not Hinch who proposed the unlawful structuring transaction. See supra. Three days later, Pickard called “Hinch” again to discuss their possible business relationship and informed Hinch he (Pickard) had a “tap light” to monitor whether “anyone was tapping into the phones or listening in on [the] conversation.” Twelve days later Pickard, the novice, called “Hinch” a third time and further expressed his ability to “clean and polish” Hinch’s cash, i.e., “tak[e] the money from [Hinch] and remov[e] any oumership or any source of the funds and put[] [it] into the banking system * * * to conceal the source of where the funds were coming from. ” Also during the May 30, 1990 telephone call, Pickard and Hinch discussed a possible rendezvous because Hinch didn’t want to discuss his business over the phone. On June 19th, defendant Hollingsworth called Hinch to solidify their plans for the rendezvous. -Critical to the analysis of the defendants’ predisposition is that after Hinch’s first contact, it was the *1208defendants who initiated four separate phone calls and aggressively pursued the relationship with Hinch who they had every reason to suspect was not engaged in lawful activity.
In addition to these phone calls from the defendants to Agent Rothrock, Pickard also sent two letters to Rothrock, on May 23rd (describing defendants’ business, International Consultants) and June 20th (providing a new business address). Importantly, it was the defendants who initiated these contacts with a “client” whose only proposition was that he had cash he wanted to be deposited offshore. Certainly the defendants were not men whom I would classify as “law-abiding citizens,” if they were, why were they pursuing and cultivating a client whom they knew was interested in circumventing the law through illicit money laundering? The defendants are “presumed to know the law,” Jacobson, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1541, i.e., that this type of transaction was illegal.
The initial face-to-face meeting was delayed for several logistical reasons, and then from August 20th when Pickard called Hinch, until February 7, 1991, when Hinch called Pickard, there was no contact except for two form letters sent by Pickard mentioning that he still had a banking license for sale and was offering a book for sale on how one could own an international company. Hinch made no attempt to contact Pickard from July 3, 1990 to February 1991 while he was awaiting authorization for and receipt of “sting money” from his supervisors.
On February 7th, when Hinch finally called Pickard and said he was in need of Pickard’s services, Pickard, the neophyte criminal, instructed him that he would first have to employ a private investigator to do a background check on Hinch. Once again, it is most obvious that Pickard knew full well that the transaction he was entering was unlawful and he was taking all precautions to avoid apprehension, but obviously he was not concerned with avoiding an illegal transaction.
On February 19th defendant Pickard and Hinch finally met in person in St. Louis, Missouri. Hinch, for the first time, mentioned the word “launder” in reference to what he desired from Pickard. Pickard assured Hinch he could arrange to convert Hinch’s cash and get it into the banking system while avoiding any reporting requirements. But Pickard, realizing he was engaging in an illegal enterprise, was still very cautious. He inquired of Hinch as to whether he was “wired” and physically “patted” him down to see if he was wired with a recording device.6 At this time, Hinch assured Pickard that the money was not from drug sales or gambling but rather that his cash was from smuggling guns into South Africa. Pickard was unabashed and made no attempt to terminate the relationship. When Hinch said that he had wished he never got his “hands dirty,” i.e., involved in gun smuggling, Pickard, attempting again to cover his tracks, responded “I didn’t even hear you say [that].” (Emphasis added). As stated above, Pickard’s eagerness to perform unlawful financial services for a gunsmuggler belies any notion that he was entrapped.
During the next month, Pickard, demonstrating how well organized and prepared he was, sent Hinch a fee schedule for the service he was providing and requested Hinch’s social security number and a “release” to perform the background check to determine whether Hinch was a government agent. On March 29th, during a 'phone conversation, Pickard sought assurance that Hinch was not working for the “Internal Revenue, the Treasury Department or any branch of the federal government.” Hinch assured Pickard he was not. On April 3rd, Pickard and Hinch met in Indianapolis, Indiana for the first transaction in which Pickard had his stock broker wire $20,000 into Hinch’s bank account in exchange for $20,000 in cash. Pick-*1209ard also received $2405 for his ten percent fee and $405 in expenses. During this meeting, Pickard expressed his concern that he didn’t want to end up in jail as a result of this transaction. Once again, this statement is contrary to the majority’s appraisal that Pickard was a “tyro” who did not know money laundering was unlawful.
The scenario of exchanging cash for a wire transfer was repeated once again on April 18th, this time with defendant Hollingsworth and Hinch, involving $30,000 and a fee of $3,405 (10% plus $405 for expenses). On May 21st, Hinch met with Pickard and Holl-ingsworth in Fayetteville, Arkansas to discuss larger transactions in the future as well as Hineh’s concern as to the method they were using to convert the money. Pickard and Hollingsworth assured Hinch they were being most careful converting the cash.
Having appeased Hinch’s concerns, on June 21st, Pickard drove to Indianapolis again to pick up $50,000 in cash from Hinch in exchange for $50,000 he had arranged to be wired into Hinch’s account. For this transaction, Pickard charged a flat ten percent fee. Pickard once again sought assurances from Hinch that he was not a government agent and that the cash was not the proceeds from drug sales. Pickard, like most clever white collar criminals, expressed a reluctance to dealing with Hinch because “he did not know who he was dealing with” but never a reluctance to engaging in unlawful money laundering.
On July 19th, Pickard and Hinch met in Indianapolis to exchange $100,000 in cash for a bank wire of $100,000 into Hinch’s account. Pickard demanded a flat nine percent fee. In a telephone conversation on August 16th, Pickard, the “unwilling,” “innocent” “neophyte,” expressed an eagerness to handle larger and larger transactions. In the conversation he used the term “smurfing,” which Agent Rothrock testified “is a slang term, and indicates taking units of money, for example ten thousand dollars, and breaking it down into units under ten thousand and going around to different financial institutions and turning those smaller units into cashier’s checks and money orders.”
Finally, on September 13, 1991, Pickard, still eager and aggressive, arrived in Indianapolis to engage in a $235,000 money laundering transaction with Hinch. During the course of the meeting, Pickard sketched the outline of his plans for creating a check cashing business to launder the money and also displayed to Hinch his phony passport from the “Dominion of Melchizedek” in the name of John Wesley Pickard.7 After the $235,000 was wired into Hinch’s bank account, Pickard and Hollingsworth were placed under arrest.
The evidence in this case bears little, if any, similarity to the facts in Jacobson. In that case, the government initiated repeated contacts with the defendant over the course of twenty-six months. In the ease before us, it was Pickard and Hollingsworth who actively pursued the government agent and made the numerous phone calls to him. It was Pickard who sent correspondence to Hinch on four separate occasions selling his services. It was Pickard who initially raised the prospect of avoiding the federal reporting requirements for transactions over $10,000. It was Pickard who evidenced a knowledge of money laundering through his use of jargon such as “cleaning and polishing” and “smurf-ing” cash. This is in contradiction to the majority’s presentation of the defendants as novices (“tyros”), uneducated in the ways of money laundering. The majority, in an attempt to justify their creation of a new element in entrapment eases, suggests that because “the line between evading and avoiding regulatory requirements is a fine one,” the defendants may not have knowingly crossed the line. The only problem is that the jury did not buy the defendants’ sales pitch that they unknowingly crossed the line. “It is not the function of this court to reweigh the evidence or to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.” Dugan v. United States, 18 F.3d 460, 463 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Wisniewski, 741 F.2d 138, 144 (7th Cir.1984)). The defendants *1210clearly knew the transactions they were engaging in were unlawful or they would not have (1) obtained (on their own initiative) false identification and false passports, (2) inquired time and again whether Hinch was a government agent, (3) conducted a background check of Hinch, (4) performed “pat-down” searches, nor (5) claimed to have “tap lights” on phones. The evidence that the defendants knew the transactions were unlawful could not be anymore overwhelming and is plainly in contradiction to the majority’s unsupported statement that “there is no evidence that [Pickard] realized that ‘structuring’ a large cash deposit to avoid federal reporting requirements would also violate the law.”
It is evident from the facts presented at trial that the defendants were quite well versed in how to launder money and expressed no reluctance at doing so. As the deal unfolded and additional details became known to Pickard, such as the fact that the cash was derived from illegal smuggling of arms into South Africa and Yugoslavia, Pick-ard was unfazed, in fact, he proceeded full-speed ahead expressing an interest in laundering larger amounts of cash. Any hesitancy to do business with the gun-smuggling Hinch was not a fear of breaking the law, but rather a fear of apprehension. The defendants’ actions are not those of an “unwary innocent” but rather those of a wary criminal. See Mathews, 485 U.S. at 58, 108 S.Ct. at 883.
The fact that Rothrock’s check of Pickard’s record revealed no prior offenses does not in itself mandate that the investigation should have ceased. Merely because he hadn’t been caught might just as likely suggest Pickard was an intelligent crook as it would that he was not a criminal at all. It seems to me that the fact Pickard and Hollingsworth came up with the illegal plan to launder Hinch’s cash, that they never mentioned much less attempted to back out of the ne-pharious money laundering scheme even though they knew Hinch’s money was “dirty,” and the fact that they created, planned and organized the whole system of laundering the currency, is more than enough evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were predisposed to commit the crime. Blackman, 950 F.2d at 423 (“view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government!,] [we] must affirm the conviction if we find that a rational trier of fact could have found the requisite predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt”).
Thus, under our Circuit’s five-part test for determining predisposition, e.g., Cervante, 958 F.2d at 179, the defendants fall far short of establishing a lack of predisposition under four of the five factors. The suggestion of criminal activity was initially made and actively pursued by the defendants, not the government. Second, the defendants were engaged in criminal activity for profit. Third, they never demonstrated a reluctance to commit the offense which was only overcome by government persuasion and fourth, the government did not offer any inducement to commit the crime. Id. As stated above, the “most important factor ... is whether the defendant evidenced reluctance to engage in criminal activity which was overcome by repeated Government inducement.” United States v. Kaminski, 703 F.2d 1004, 1008 (7th Cir.1983); accord Casanova, 970 F.2d at 375 (applying same test post-/aco6-son). Under no circumstances do the facts in this case, demonstrate reluctance on the part of the defendants that was overcome with, repeated government inducement. In this case, the defendants were not reluctant to engage in criminal activity and there was no inducement; the government merely presented the defendants with an opportunity to commit a crime (as they do in all “sting operations”), an opportunity that a law-abiding citizen would have refused. The record supports only one rational conclusion — the conclusion reached by the jury after hearing all the evidence and weighing the credibility of the witnesses — that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged and were not entrapped.
The majority relies, in part, on an elaborate hypothetical involving government agents setting up a counterfeiting scheme and recruiting a willing, though unschooled in counterfeiting, individual to press the button and print the phony dollars. While the *1211strawman that the majority creates to make its point might very well have an argument that he was entrapped, the hypothetical bears no resemblance to the factual situation presented in the ease before us. In the instant case, it was the defendants who proposed the unlawful transactions, it was the defendants, not the government agents, who devised the scheme to launder the money, and it was the defendants who engaged in all the precautionary measures to avoid apprehension for they well knew it was illegal. In short, after the initial phone call placed by Agent Rothroek, it was the defendants who brought about this unlawful money laundering scheme while reaping their illegal profits.
This case is really quite similar to another decision of this court written by the author of the majority, United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714 (7th Cir.1991). Evans, however, involved a drug transaction and the decision was issued pre-Jacobson. In Evans, we stated,
“The centrality of predisposition can be seen by considering the purpose of the doctrine of entrapment. It is to prevent the police from turning a law-abiding person into a criminal_ A law-abiding person is one who resists the temptations, which abound in our society today, to commit crimes. Such a person can be induced to commit a crime only by grave threats, by fraud (the police might persuade him that the act they want him to commit is not criminal), or, in the usual case in which entrapment is pleaded, by extraordinary promises — the sorts of promises that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties.”
Id. at 717 (citations omitted). The majority suggests that after Jacobson, we must also consider whether the defendant was in the “position” to commit the crime absent “government help.” As discussed above, in Jacobson the Court was not concerned with the defendant’s positioning (or “readiness” as referred to in Judge Ripple’s dissent), but rather with the fact that the government’s inducement campaign lasted over twenty-six months and the defendant’s ultimate willingness to purchase the unlawful child pornography was in large part due to the government’s repeated persuasive efforts. The Court emphasized in Jacobson that the defendant had “been the target of 26 months of repeated mailings and communications from Government agents and fictitious organizations. Therefore, although he had become predisposed to break the law by May 1987, it is our view that the Government did not prove that this predisposition was independent and not the product of the attention that the Government had directed at petitioner since January 1985.” Jacobson, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1541. The fact that Jacobson was “an otherwise law-abiding citizen” is not dispositive because the Court emphasized that “[h]ad the agents in this case simply offered petitioner the opportunity to order child pornography through the mails, and petitioner — who must be presumed to know the law — had promptly availed himself of this criminal opportunity, it is unlikely that his entrapment defense would have warranted a jury instruction.” Id. What is important in this type of entrapment case is not the defendant’s “position” or “readiness,” but whether the government went to great lengths (26 months of inducement) to prepare the defendant to take the bait. As explained above, the facts in our ease bear little or no resemblance to Jacobson. Moreover, defendants Pickard and Hollingsworth were ready, willing, able, eager, and in fact jumped at the opportunity, to violate the law.
Pickard and Hollingsworth, the “tyros,” laundered $435,000 over the course of six months. Far from being novices who were entrapped by overzealous government agents, they demonstrated that they knew what they were doing and were in fact quite proficient at it. Accordingly, the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should not be overturned. See Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63, 108 S.Ct. at 886.
Dissent.

. Our circuit examines five criteria to determine predisposition:
"(1) the character or reputation of the defendant; (2) whether the suggestion of criminal activity was made by the government; (3) whether the defendant was engaged in criminal activity for profit; (4) whether the defendant evidenced reluctance to commit the offense; overcome by government persuasion; and (5) the nature of the inducement or persuasion offered by the government.”
United States v. Cerrante, 958 F.2d 175, 179 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Blackman, 950 F.2d 420, 423 (7th Cir.1991)). In United States v. Kaminski, 703 F.2d 1004, 1008 (7th Cir.1983), this court stated " 'The most important factor ... is whether the defendant evidenced reluctance to engage in criminal activity which was overcome by repeated Government inducement.' " Id. (quoting United States v. Reynoso-Ulloa, 548 F.2d 1329, 1336 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied 436 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 2820, 56 L.Ed.2d 769 (1978)).

. The majority cites United States v. Olson, 978 F.2d 1472, 1483 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1614, 123 L.Ed.2d 174, 175 (1993), for support of its theory that Jacobson changed the face of entrapment law. Olson merely states that Jacobson enunciates a new standard but contains no support for the sweeping change the majority proposes today, i.e., that the government must prove not only the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime but also that he was in a “position” to commit the crime. See infra at 1206.

. The requirement that the government prove the defendant was in a position to commit the crime is a new element of entrapment, created by the majority this date, and is discussed thoroughly in Judge Ripple's dissent.

. Hinch initiated the investigation because Pick-ard was offering for sale an international Class A banking license which Hinch was well aware of being a valuable tool in money laundering. The analysis here should proceed much like that in a Terry stop because in a Terry stop, and in a government "sting,” the officers usually begin with limited knowledge and proceed with the investigation based on the progressive revelation of facts. In a typical Terry stop, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion to make the stop based on specific articulable facts. Upon initial contact, when the officer begins questioning the suspect, if the officer’s suspicions are not allayed, the stop may continue, i.e., further questions, background check, and a search for weapons until either the officer has probable cause for an arrest or he lacks sufficient cause and terminates the encounter.
A police officer or government agent may, because of his training, knowledge and experience, be able to discern more from a given situation than an average citizen. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (in which the Supreme Court upheld the defendant's conviction for possession of a concealed weapon which was seized after a police officer with 39 years experience observed the defendant repeatedly walking in front of a store and peering in the window). In this case, Agent Rothrock’s suspicion was raised because Pickard placed an ad in a widely read daily newspaper offering a banking license for sale. To the average reader of the USA Today, an ad of this nature would be quite unremarkable, yet Agent Rothrock knew that a "Class A” international banking license was a valuable tool to someone interested in money laundering. While certainly not sufficient to establish probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, the newspaper ad certainly merited an investigatory phone call. Upon initial contact, Rothrock, through his undercover alias "Tom Hinch” informed Pickard that his organization had a lot of cash that needed to be deposited. Pickard, displayed his knowledge of money laundering by quickly devising two unlawful schemes to take care of Hinch's cash: depositing the money outside the United States or breaking up the large sums of cash into smaller amounts ("structuring” or “laundering”). Thus, in the first significant contact between the government agent and the suspect, the suspect proposed an unlawful transaction to the agent. The defendant’s action was sufficient to warrant further investigation by Rothrock.
While the majority correctly states, "there is no evidence that Pickard’s intention in offering his Grenadan banking license for sale was to get into the money-laundering business,” for someone interested in making money (legally or illegally) through international finance, it is quite telling that he chose to advertise in a newspaper with one of the largest daily circulations in the country.

. Novice.

. Agent Rothrock did in fact have a microphone on his person but Pickard did not discover it. This encounter, along with every other phone call and meeting was recorded. Thus, the jury heard not just the agent's recounting of the conversations but the actual conversations on tape. Some of the subsequent meetings were video taped as well. This evidence, along with the other circumstantial and direct evidence convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendants' guilt of each and every element of the crimes charged: structuring a currency transaction and money laundering.

. John Wesley Pickard was the name of the defendant’s brother who died seven days after birth.