The Supreme Court of the United States on June 2, 2008, rendered 2 judgments in favor of defendants, narrowing the application of the federal money-laundering statute.
First, in a 9-0 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas reversed Acuna, Mexico's Humberto Cuellar's conviction and ruled that "hiding $81,000 in cash under the floorboard of a car and driving toward Mexico is not enough to prove the driver was guilty of money laundering; instead, prosecutors must also prove the driver was traveling to Mexico for the purpose of hiding the true source of the funds." The Court further ruled "that federal prosecutors have gone too far in their use of money laundering charges to combat drug traffickers and organized crime; that money laundering charges under the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, Sec. 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) apply only to profits of an illegal gambling ring and cannot be used when the only evidence of a possible crime is when a courier headed to Texas-Mexico border with $ 81,000 in cash proceeds of a marijuana transaction; it cannot be proven merely by showing that the funds were concealed in a secret compartment of a Volkswagen Beetlecar; instead, prosecutors must show that the purpose of transporting funds in a money laundering case was to conceal their ownership, source or control; the secrecy must be part of a larger “design” to disguise the source or nature of the money."
Second, in a 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia reversed Efrain Santos of Indiana and Benedicto Diaz's convictions for money laundering based on cash from an illegal lottery. Scalia ruled that the law referred to the "proceeds of some form of unlawful activity; paying off gambling winners and compensating employees who collect the bets don't qualify as money laundering; the word “proceeds” in the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. §1956,and §1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and§1956(h), applies only to transactions involving criminal profits, not criminal receipts; those are expenses, and prosecutors must show that profits were used to promote the illegal activity." Congress enacted the 1986 statute after the President's Commission on Organized Crime stressed the problem of "washing" criminal proceeds through overseas bank accounts and legitimate businesses. It imposes a 20-year maximum prison term
First, in a 9-0 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas reversed Acuna, Mexico's Humberto Cuellar's conviction and ruled that "hiding $81,000 in cash under the floorboard of a car and driving toward Mexico is not enough to prove the driver was guilty of money laundering; instead, prosecutors must also prove the driver was traveling to Mexico for the purpose of hiding the true source of the funds." The Court further ruled "that federal prosecutors have gone too far in their use of money laundering charges to combat drug traffickers and organized crime; that money laundering charges under the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, Sec. 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) apply only to profits of an illegal gambling ring and cannot be used when the only evidence of a possible crime is when a courier headed to Texas-Mexico border with $ 81,000 in cash proceeds of a marijuana transaction; it cannot be proven merely by showing that the funds were concealed in a secret compartment of a Volkswagen Beetlecar; instead, prosecutors must show that the purpose of transporting funds in a money laundering case was to conceal their ownership, source or control; the secrecy must be part of a larger “design” to disguise the source or nature of the money."
Second, in a 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia reversed Efrain Santos of Indiana and Benedicto Diaz's convictions for money laundering based on cash from an illegal lottery. Scalia ruled that the law referred to the "proceeds of some form of unlawful activity; paying off gambling winners and compensating employees who collect the bets don't qualify as money laundering; the word “proceeds” in the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. §1956,and §1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and§1956(h), applies only to transactions involving criminal profits, not criminal receipts; those are expenses, and prosecutors must show that profits were used to promote the illegal activity." Congress enacted the 1986 statute after the President's Commission on Organized Crime stressed the problem of "washing" criminal proceeds through overseas bank accounts and legitimate businesses. It imposes a 20-year maximum prison term
No comments:
Post a Comment