Court Opinion

ID: 9601256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:40:48.565805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:22.208897
License: Public Domain

*190SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I agree fully with the majority that there was ample evidence establishing the existence of a large-scale, international money laundering conspiracy. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Huezo had the requisite knowledge and specific intent to launder the proceeds of specified unlawful activity so as to support his conviction for money laundering or conspiracy. I concur fully with the district court’s assessment of the evidence. I therefore would affirm Huezo’s judgment of acquittal, and I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion reversing the judgment.
As an initial matter, I agree with the majority that the recent Supreme Court decision in Regalado Cuellar v. United States, —- U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1994, 170 L.Ed.2d 942 (2008), provides meaningful guidance in interpreting the concealment element of the “transaction money laundering” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). Maj. Op. at 178-80. The04 transaction money laundering statute requires that a defendant have knowledge that a transaction is “designed in whole or in part” 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)(l)(B)(i). In Regalado Cuellar, the Supreme Court interpreted nearly identical language in the “transportation money laundering statute,” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)®, holding that “merely hiding funds during transportation is not sufficient to violate the statute, even if substantial efforts have been expended to conceal the money.” 128 S.Ct. at 2003. Rather, “a conviction under this provision requires proof that the purpose — not merely effect — of the transportation was to conceal or disguise a listed attribute” of the proceeds of unlawful activity. Id. at 2005. In short, the government must prove not merely that a defendant concealed funds, but also that a defendant had the intent to launder such funds by concealing or disguising their nature, location, source, ownership, or control.1
Under the transaction money laundering statute, the government must prove not only that the transactions in which Huezo participated were designed to launder money, but also that Huezo knew that a purpose of the transactions was to launder money. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B) (requiring “knowledge] that the transaction is designed in whole or in part” to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of proceeds of specified illegal activity). This knowledge requirement also, applies to Huezo’s conspiracy and aiding and abetting charges. See United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.1996) (“To show specific intent [to aid and abet,] the prosecution must prove the defendant knew of the proposed crime ... and had an interest in furthering it.”); United States v. Monaco, 194 F.3d 381, 386 (2d Cir.1999) (“To prove conspiracy, the government must show that the defendant ... knowingly engaged in the conspiracy with the specific intent to commit the offenses that were the objects of the conspiracy .... ” (internal quotation marks omitted)).2 *191Thus, to support the conviction the government had to prove, inter alia, that Huezo (1) knew that the suitcases contained money; (2) knew that this money was the proceeds of illegal activity; and (3) knew that the transactions in which he participated were designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of such proceeds.
At the very best, the evidence cited by the majority might weakly support an inference that Huezo may have known that the suitcases contained money and that this money constituted proceeds of illegal activity — but the evidence supporting this inference certainly does not establish Hue-zo’s knowledge of money laundering beyond a reasonable doubt. In finding differently, the majority ignores the clear lesson of Regalado Cuellar. Although there is evidence of a money laundering scheme in the case before us, the proof of Huezo’s knowledge of a money laundering scheme is not qualitatively or quantitatively greater than the proof at issue in Rega-lado Cuellar. In Regalado Cuellar, the defendant was caught hiding a large sum of money in his car. Here, Huezo was seen delivering two suitcases filled with money. Indeed, the evidence of knowledge in Regalado Cuellar was arguably stronger, because “substantial efforts” were “expended to conceal the money” by placing it in a hidden compartment and covering it with animal hair, id. at 2003, whereas the money Huezo transported was merely placed in a suitcase. Regardless, Regalado Cuellar is clear that “merely hiding funds ... is not sufficient to violate the statute, even if substantial efforts have been expended to conceal the money.” Regalado Cuellar, 128 S.Ct. at 2003. Accordingly, Huezo’s judgment of acquittal should stand.
Considering first Huezo’s knowledge regarding the contents of the suitcases, notably, there is no evidence that Huezo ever saw the suitcases’ contents or that he could have inferred their contents through conversations or activities in which he participated. For example, Huezo was not present at the November 5 meeting among Linares, Echevarria, and undercover officer Del Rio, where the three openly discussed their plans for the exchange of money, including the time, vicinity, quantity, and manner in which the money was to be delivered. When Huezo was present— for example, during the November 8 drop-off with Del Rio — there is no evidence that the conspirators packaged the money in front of Huezo, that the money was exchanged openly, or that the meeting took place outside a bank or similar financial repository such that Huezo could infer that the suitcase contained money. Nor is there any evidence in the record suggesting that either Del Rio or Linares ever mentioned the contents of the suitcase or the purpose of the exchange during the drop-off. The absence of such evidence is fatal to the government’s case, because “the exterior appearance of the [suitcases] was equally consistent with any number of different criminal offenses.” United States v. Samaria, 239 F.3d 228, 237 (2d. Cir.2001) (finding insufficient evidence that a defendant charged with conspiracy to receive or possess stolen goods and to commit credit card fraud, who helped collect boxes under circumstances suggesting criminal activity, knew that the boxes contained stolen goods).
The facts at issue in Huezo’s case are similar to those in United States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539 (2d Cir.2004), where we found the evidence insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for possession of heroin with the intent to distribute *192and conspiracy to distribute heroin, despite the fact that “the government presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that [the defendant] served as a lookout” in a drug transaction. Id. at 545. Critically, although the defendant in Rodriguez was in close proximity to boxes containing heroin, “the heroin was hidden inside a telephone box and also wrapped in two bags.” Id. at 547. Because the appearance of the boxes did not establish their content, we concluded that the defendant’s proximity to the hidden contraband did not amount to “circumstantial evidence adequate to prove” the defendant’s “knowledge and specific intent to aid and abet a drug transaction.” Id. at 546-47. We similarly found that the fact that Rodriguez owned the car used in the drug transaction — just as Huezo owned the Jeep used in the money laundering transactions at issue in this case — did not establish his knowledge of the transaction’s purpose. Id. at 546. Furthermore, although there was evidence that the defendant in Rodriguez participated in planning conversations, we found that this participation was insufficient to support a conviction because there was no evidence “of the precise contents of the conversations,” and particularly whether these conversations mentioned drugs. Id. at 547-48; cf. United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 22 (2d Cir.1990) (affirming a conviction for conspiracy to distribute narcotics when a defendant was heard using coded drug language during telephone conversations). Thus, even if we infer from Huezo’s presence in the house and his relationship with Linares and Echevarria that he was present during discussions about the November 8 and November 10 delivery transactions, such conversations would be insufficient, absent details regarding the content of those conversations, to establish that Huezo knew that the suitcases contained money and that this money constituted the proceeds of illegal activity.
More importantly, however, no evidence exists with respect to Huezo’s knowledge that the purpose of the November 8 and November 10 delivery transactions was to launder the proceeds of illegal activity. There is no evidence that Huezo was privy to or participated in any conversations that referenced money laundering. Cf. United States v. Padilla, 961 F.2d 322, 324-25 (2d Cir.1992) (holding that there was sufficient evidence that a defendant who served as a lookout knew that the purpose of his trip to the airport was to pick up a drug courier because he was present for a planning conversation that referenced the “DEA” and the presence of dogs at the airport). Furthermore, the evidence supports an inference that Huezo was only a minor actor who would not necessarily have participated in such conversations: Huezo’s name was never mentioned during the November 5 planning meeting, and Officer Del Rio testified that he had never seen nor heard Huezo’s name prior to the November 8 drop-off.
Even more critically, Huezo’s behavior during the November 8 and November 10 deliveries was equally consistent with a belief by Huezo that he was simply transporting the proceeds of a drug transaction — or engaged in some other criminal activity — leaving him without the requisite knowledge that the purpose of the transactions was to launder money. For example, although Agent Adamo testified that Hue-zo “was providing an extra layer of security” when Echevarria moved the suitcase from the house on November 10, such behavior was consistent with a belief by Huezo that he was transporting money for a drug transaction, or transporting other valuable merchandise such as drugs. Viewing the evidence in its totality, there is simply no greater evidentiary basis for *193the inference that Huezo thought he was engaged in money laundering than there is for the inference that he thought he was involved in some other illegal activity, such as transporting drug payments. “[I]f the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, then a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58, 70 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, as in Samaria, where we rejected the government’s argument that because a defendant aided in the pick-up of stolen goods he intended to participate in the specific crime charged, the majority’s argument “rests upon the unproven assumption that [Huezo] knew” that the November 8 and November 10 transactions were “designed” to launder money. 239 F.3d at 236; Maj. Op. at 181-82. Such unproven assumptions are insufficient to support a conviction.
The majority attempts to distinguish our precedents by arguing that in Samaria the defendant was a “gypsy cab driver” with no other connection to the conspirators, while Huezo had a sustained relationship with Linares and Echevarria and had traveled from California soon before the transactions, which suggests that he would not have been involved in the transactions by mere happenstance. See Maj. Op. 183-84; Samaria, 239 F.3d at 232-33. This argument is unconvincing. With respect to Huezo’s relationship with Linares and Echevarria, the majority overlooks that the defendant in Samaria participated in two separate pickups of stolen goods with his alleged conspirators, including one in which he rode as a passenger, which we concluded “may help establish that [the defendant] had a closer association with [the conspirators] than that of a taxi driver.” 3 Id. at 238. But despite evidence of this closer association, we nonetheless concluded that the defendant’s work as a driver and a lookout did not indicate that he “was aware of the specific crimes charged and ... had the specific intent to participate in those crimes.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaviria, 740 F.2d 174 (2d Cir.1984) (cited by Samaria, 239 F.3d at 241-42) (finding insufficient evidence of a defendant’s specific intent to participate in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, despite the defendant’s long association with a known drug trafficker and her pattern of suspicious behavior, including counter-surveillance). Under these precedents, Huezo’s relationship with Linares and Echevarria is not sufficient to establish that he knew the specific nature of the transactions in which he participated or assisted.
Likewise, in cases where we found travel indicative of a defendant’s knowledge and intent to participate in a conspiracy, the defendant’s travel patterns were more suspicious than Huezo’s, and the government presented additional strong evidence of the defendant’s knowledge of the underlying crimes. For example, in United States v. Aleskerova, 300 F.3d 286 (2d Cir.2002), a defendant charged with conspiracy to possess, conceal, and sell stolen artwork booked a last-minute trip from Azerbaijan to New York on the same day the conspirators scheduled a critical meeting in New York, arriving in New York fifty minutes before that meeting. Id. at 293. The *194government also presented evidence that the defendant “was sent to view the [stolen] art, was trusted to know its location, and was told the combination to the suitcase [holding the art],” which we found “strongly suggested] her full, knowing participation in the conspiracy.” Id. at 294. The defendant also discussed delivery of the artwork with another conspirator, id. at 291, further supporting the inference that she knew the purpose of the conspiracy. Likewise, in United States v. Pedroza, 750 F.2d 187 (2d Cir.1984), we inferred a defendant’s membership in a kidnaping conspiracy based on evidence that he “had to criss-cross the country [from Miami to Los Angeles and from Los Angeles to New York] to be present at the critical times” for the kidnaping, “together with” evidence that the defendant was present in a house for two weeks with the kidnapped child, was present with the conspirators and the kidnapped child on the night the conspirators made final ransom arrangements, and was present when the conspirators permitted the kidnapped child to talk to his father on the telephone. Id. at 193, 198-99 (emphasis added). In contrast, the evidence in Huezo’s ease at most suggests that Huezo arrived in Connecticut several days before the November 8 and November 10 deliveries,4 and there is no evidence that he made multiple long-distance trips that happened to correspond to critical events in the conspiracy. There is also no evidence that Huezo participated in planning sessions about the laundering of money, or even saw the content of the suitcases. Absent such evidence, the inferential leaps required to tie Huezo’s travel from California to a specific intent to join a money laundering operation— including that his travel to Connecticut was connected to the presence of Linares and Echevarria, that any such travel was not merely social, and that any business reasons for his travel were more consistent with money laundering than with another crime — are simply too great to give his travel the probative value the majority ascribes to it.5 See Glenn, 312 F.3d at 70 (“[A]s the inferential leap between the fact and the proposition to be derived grows, the probative value of the evidence diminishes.”).
The other circumstantial evidence cited by the majority is also inadequate to establish Huezo’s knowledge regarding the purpose of the transactions, even when considered in its totality. For example, although the majority suggests that common sense supports the inference that the principals of the conspiracy would not have trusted an outsider to participate in the money laundering transactions or share a house with conspirators, Maj. Op. at 182-83, common sense could also support the opposite conclusion — that the leaders of the conspiracy might want to keep Huezo uninformed about the intended goal of the conspiracy for plausible deniability reasons in case he was ever questioned, or to avoid *195having to pay him more for his services. Such an inference is buttressed by the absence of any evidence that money was packaged or left visible in the house. Cf. United States v. Soto, 959 F.2d 1181, 1185 (2d Cir.1992) (holding that because the defendant was present in an apartment where large-scale narcotics operations were conspicuous, “[t]he jury could ... have reasonably determined that only trusted members of the operation would be permitted entry into the apartment, because allowing outsiders to have access to an apartment with large quantities of narcotics in plain view could compromise the security of the operation.” (emphasis added)).
The majority also emphasizes that, on November 10, Huezo personally carried a small bag containing $6,000, packaged similarly to the bundled cash in the larger suitcases, from the house to behind the driver’s seat of his Jeep. Maj. Op. at 181— 82. According to the majority, a rational juror could conclude that Huezo’s “special treatment” of the bag indicates that the bag belonged to him and that it contained profits from the money laundering conspiracy that were paid to him for his assistance. Id. This evidence simply does not support the conclusion the majority draws. Agent Adamo, who described Huezo’s movements, conceded that he knew nothing about the circumstances surrounding Huezo’s carrying of the bag, including whether Linares had asked Huezo to carry it for him. Furthermore, the record indicates that Linares and Echevarria were both passengers in the Jeep, such that one of them would have had to have been in the back seat next to the bag. Accordingly, Huezo’s placement of the bag behind the driver’s seat is consistent with the inference that it was the back seat passenger who owned the bag, and not Huezo. To the extent that Huezo’s treatment of the bag might suggest that it belonged to him and that it constituted payment for his activities, this evidence still fails to establish that Huezo knew that he was being paid for participation in, and with proceeds from, a money laundering conspiracy, rather than some other illegal activity.6
In sum, I disagree with the majority that, when viewing the evidence in its totality, a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Huezo knew that the purpose, rather than merely the effect, of the November 8 and November 10 transactions was to conceal or disguise proceeds from illegal activities. While each piece of circumstantial evidence discussed by the majority may be probative to some degree of Huezo’s guilty knowledge that he was involved in something illegal, the evidence in its totality is insufficient to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Huezo knew that the transactions in which he participated were designed to launder the proceeds of illegal activity. See Regalado Cuellar, 128 S.Ct. at 2003-05. As the Supreme Court observed in Regalado Cuellar, in cases *196“where the consequences of an action are commonly known,” a criminal defendant’s knowledge or purpose can be “shown circumstantially based on inferences drawn from evidence of effect.” 128 S.Ct. at 2005 n. 8. Delivering suitcases containing money, however, is common not only to money laundering. Although Regalado Cuellar gives us clear guidance that a participant in a money laundering transaction must know that the purpose of the transaction is to launder money, it is apparent from the majority’s opinion that it fails to follow the Supreme Court’s directive. The majority fails to recognize that evidence of such knowledge must be something more than mere presence at the exchange or delivery of concealed money. Because I do not believe that the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Huezo knew the specific purpose of the transactions in which he participated, I respectfully dissent.

. Indeed, the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 suggests that the scienter standard was deliberately heightened to "knowing” because lower standards, such as "reckless disregard” or "reason to know,” "could lead to prosecution of people who were not in any way involved in money laundering.” S.Rep. No. 99-433, at 6 (1986).

. I note that as Judge Newman stated in his concurrence, which I join, a defendant's participation in a conspiracy is an element of the *191conspiracy offense, and must itself be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

. Furthermore, although the majority suggests that the defendant in Samaria was “simply performing his regular job,” Maj. Op. at 183-84, the government presented evidence that he served as a lookout as well as a driver, Samaria, 239 F.3d at 237-38. This evidence undermines the majority's characterization of the defendant in Samaria as an “unwitting outsider.” Maj. Op. at 183-84.

. The evidence that Huezo recently traveled to Connecticut from California is itself weak. The government relies completely on the fact that Huezo provided a California address to a hotel shortly before the November transactions. The government presented no evidence of Huezo’s travel itinerary, and officer Fernandez testified that Huezo had a Connecticut driver’s license.

. The majority suggests that because Linares and Echevarria had California driver’s licenses and Huezo gave a California address to a hotel shortly before the November transactions, a rational juror could conclude that “the three men traveled from California to Connecticut and met for the express purpose of facilitating the money laundering conspiracy.” Maj. Op. at 182-83. This conclusion rests on several unproven assumptions. For example, Linares' and Echevarria’s California licenses do not establish when they last visited California, and the government presented no evidence that Linares, Echevarria, and Huezo traveled together from California to New York.

. In reaching the opposite conclusion, the majority relies heavily on a statement in Sa-maria, in which we indicated that one possible circumstantial indicia of knowledge and specific intent would be that the defendant “received a share of the profits from the conspiracy.” Samaria, 239 F.3d at 235. In support of this proposition, Samaria cited United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786 (2d Cir.1992). Samaria, 239 F.3d at 235. In Mar-kiewicz, however, the defendants, unlike Hue-zo, "essentially concede[d]” that they knew the source of the funds they had received. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 806. In light of this different fact pattern, the majority reads too much into Samaria in suggesting that Huezo’s carrying of a camera-sized bag containing some money is sufficient to prove his knowledge that the purpose of his delivery of a suitcase containing money was money laundering, even though he would have been paid for activities that were equally consistent with other crimes.