Posts Tagged ‘money laundering’

Promotional money laundering and Concealment money laundering are two separate offenses that do not require a special verdict form or a specific unanimity instruction to the jury.

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

U.S. v. Felts, 2009 WL 2568362 (August 21, 2009)

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment. Appealing his conviction and sentence, the defendant contended that the district court improperly instructed the jury on the money laundering offenses because promotional and concealment money laundering are two separate offenses and should not have been submitted to the jury as a single charge. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence but specifically addressed the propriety of the jury instructions, reviewing for plain error. The Court found minimal distinction between using money to promote unlawful activity and using it to conceal or disguise unlawful activity, therefore it was unnecessary to instruct a jury to unanimously agree to which mental state the defendant possessed, i.e. there was no error, plain or otherwise.

A two-level enhancement was not impermissible double-counting.

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

U.S. v. Demarest, 570 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. June 10, 2009)

The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for three counts of money laundering. The court found that the defendant’s physical and mental efforts on the day in question demonstrated that he was not overly intoxicated. Secondly, the jury was entitled to believe that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime and not entrapped. Lastly, the defendant’s reliance on case law was misplaced and the evidence established that laundered funds were proceeds of illegal drug trafficking.

The District Court did not err in enhancing defendant’s sentence.

The two-level enhancement was not impermissible double-counting as defendant’s violation under Section 1956 was not factored into his base level since the money laundering statutes are not distinguishable with regard to the defendant’s base level. Moreover, defendant’s statements and behavior prove he believed the laundered funds were or were intended to be proceeds of illegal drugs.