*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

Federal Crimes Outline - Professor Bolitho - Campbell Law - Part 8

By Miller Moreau
Professor Bolitho - 2021

Download the PDF version of this outline

<< Part 7 | Part 9 >>

f. 18 U.S.C. § 1957 Money Laundering (Money Spending)

  1. This is a regulatory crime, so there is no need for an intent requirement
  2. Elements (NO intent requirement)
    1. Knowingly engaging in a monetary transaction
    2. Using criminally derived property from an SUA
    3. Of a value exceeding $10,000
  3. Monetary Transaction—The (1) deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange (2) in or affecting IC or foreign commerce (3) of funds or monetary instruments (4) by, to, or through a financial institution.
    1. Financial Institution—One that is federally insured
    2. Criminally Derived Property—any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained from a SUA
  4. Is there a traceability
    1. U.S. v. Rutgard (9th Cir.)
      1. Holding—Where there is tainted money comingled with clean money, the deposit of tainted funds is a violation of § 1957. However, when removing the money, it is only a crime IF there is less money left in the account than the total of criminal deposits AND the amount withdrawn is over $10,000.
        1. Basically, clean money comes out first, then criminal money. If, after clean money has been depleted, an excess of $10,000 in tainted money is removed, there IS a violation of § 1957.
    2. Moore (4th Cir.)
      1. There is NO requirement for the government to trace the money, presume that any money taken out is criminal first.
      2. Rejected by 9th Cir. because the statute does not contemplate funds involved in the SUA as § 1956 does, but rather contemplates mooney “derived from” a SUA.
    3. Lee (5th Cir.)
      1. Proportionality Rule—Look at the % of clean money and % of tainted money in total. Then apply those percentages to the transfer. If the value of the criminal percentage in the transfer exceeds $10,000 there is a violation.

g. Differences in § 1956 and § 1957

  1. The Intent Requirement
    1. § 1956(a)—D either has (a) intent to promote or evade taxes OR (b) knowledge that he is concealing it or avoiding reporting requirements
    2. § 1957—ONLY requires D to knowingly engage in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property
  2. The Transaction
    1. § 1956Financial Transaction—Applies to the transfer of ANY property
    2. § 1957Monetary Transaction—Restricted to money or its equivalents
  3. The Value
    1. § 1956—No value requirement
    2. § 1957—Only applies to transfers of criminal property in excess of $10,000
  4. Comingling Funds
    1. § 1956—No tracing requirement for comingled funds
    2. § 1957—Depending on the circuit, gov’t may have to trace the funds
X. Mail/Wire Fraud

a. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 Mail/Wire Fraud

  1. Jurisdictional Requirements
    1. Mail—All that needs to occur is for the D to use OR cause another to use the mail in furtherance of the scheme.
    2. Wire—Transfer via a wire, phone, or other telecommunication pathway.
  2. Elements
    1. D knowingly participated in, devised, or intended to devise a scheme to defraud in order to obtain money or property (that he is not entitled to)
      1. Obtain money or property” (SEE P. 32)
    2. The scheme included a material misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact
      1. Material—Has a natural tendency to influence the decision of a RPP
    3. D had the intent to defraud
      1. Specific intent
        1. Must have the intent to cheat another out of his property.
      2. Determined at the time the agreement is made
    4. D used the mail or caused another to use the mail or a wire in furtherance of the scheme
    5. Additional Elements Using § 1346 Honest Services Prong (see p. 30-32)
  3. 3 Things that are NOT Required
    1. Central to the scheme
    2. Need not be false information
    3. Mailing was by the D
  4. § 1341 Definition of “Fraud”
    1. Durland v. U.S. (Brewer) (1896)
      1. Fraud, whether criminal or civil, must be the misrepresentation of a material existing or past fact, and cannot consist of the mere intention not to carry out a K in the future. HOWEVER, making a promise with absolutely no intention of paying it back in the future is fraud.
        1. Having no future intent suffices as a “scheme or artifice to defraud.”
      2. Purpose of § 1341—To protect the public of intentional efforts to despoil and prevent the post office from being used to carry these schemes into effect.
      3. Defense—The D had the real intent to pay the money back but was frustrated in that end.
    2. Neder—may signal a rollback of Durland. Holding—Charges of fraud require the use of the mail/wire to be material. Could later lead to a more conservative approach to fraud. But this seems to have been narrowed to the misrepresented fact, not materiality in the use of the mail.
  5. Penalties
    1. Standard = 20yr max
    2. During a Presidentially declared emergency = 30 year max

b. § 1346—Further defines “scheme or artifice to defraud” as a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

  1. Intangible Rights Theory (IRT)
    1. Only applies to (1) public officials and (2) commercial officers.
    2. After Skilling, the IRT contemplated in § 1346 has been narrowed to only apply to kickbacks and bribery, but does NOT criminalize undisclosed self-dealing.
    3. Overall, it is not a crime for public officials to enjoy the accoutrements of making connections with wealthy people who want their ear.
    4. Skilling v. U.S. (Ginsburg) (2010)
      1. Holding— § 1346 only applies to kickbacks and bribes.
      2. NO requirement for the victim to be directly deprived of anything of value
      3. Elements of Honest Services— (1) fiduciary duty is violated (2) by participating in a bribery or kickback scheme
      4. Kickback—any money, fee, commission, credit, figt, gratuity, thing of value, or compensation of any kind, which is provided, directly or indirectly, to D for the purpose of improperly obtaining or rewarding favorable treatment in connection with SUA. i.e., It is a bribe to be collected from the profit made off the official act.
      5. Scalia (concurring in part)
        1. Rejects the use of severance to save a full vacating of the law. States that this reading is an overextension of judicial power because it effectively creates new crimes. Thus, the whole law should be struck.
        2. His primary issue with the § 1346 is that it does not provide a criterion of guilt.
      6. Deus ex machina—an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation
      7. Essentially, the Court has construed § 1346 to be a specialized fraud statute for bribes and kickbacks that is applicable to both state and federal defendants.
  2. Operation of IRT outside “honest services”
    1. Without engaging in the IRT definition of “honest services,” the statute can also be used to prosecute fraud in the realm of intellectual property rights since they are intangible rights.
Related Topics

The Charlotte lawyers at Powers Law Firm PA are dedicated to compassionate legal representation, predicated on superlative knowledge, trial skills, and conscientious advocacy.

The gift of a legal education extends beyond a fulfilling way to earn a living. Omni autem cui multum datum.

Bill Powers - Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com

Carolina Law Blog / Awards and Certifications

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together... J.R.
★★★★★
Bill Powers and his firm were a true blessing. If anyone is contacting an attorney, it's more than likely not from a positive life experience. If there was a rating for "bedside manner" for lawyers he'd get a 10/10 for that as well. The entire staff were helpful... K.C.
★★★★★
Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.
★★★★★
Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.