Posted on 01/12/2005 12:56:32 AM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can obtain a conviction for a money-laundering conspiracy without the need to prove that any of the conspirators did anything concrete to carry out the scheme.
The unanimous decision resolved, in the government's favor, a dispute among the lower federal courts over the meaning of a 1992 amendment that added a conspiracy provision to the federal law against money laundering.
The amendment omitted the requirement, contained in many federal conspiracy laws, that the government prove an "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy," beyond the act of conspiring. The question was whether, despite this omission, the provision should nonetheless be interpreted to include the requirement of an overt act.
The case was an appeal by two men who were members of the board of the Greater Ministries International Church, which raised more than $400 million from 1996 to 1999. Investors were told that they would double their money in short order if they provided the church with "gifts" that would be invested overseas in gold, diamonds and commodities, with profits going in part to charity.
"Most of these claims were false," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observed dryly in recounting the facts of the case in her opinion for the court. She added, referring to the church by its initials, that the "investments indeed largely turned out to be 'gifts' to GMIC representatives." The two men, David Whitfield and Haywood E. Hall, received more than $1 million in commissions.
A federal grand jury in Tampa, Fla., indicted the two for a variety of offenses, including conspiring to launder money. At the trial, the judge explained the elements of that offense to the jury: "that two or more people came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan" and that the defendant "knowingly and willfully became a member of such conspiracy."
The judge refused a defense request to instruct the jury that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the co-conspirators committed an overt act that favored the conspiracy. Their conviction on the conspiracy charge was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, which observed that the Supreme Court had recently interpreted the similarly worded drug conspiracy statute and found that it did not require proof of an overt act.
In her opinion, Justice O'Connor observed that in the general federal conspiracy law and in 22 provisions outlawing specific types of conspiracies, Congress had included an overt-act requirement, "clearly demonstrating that it knows how to impose such a requirement when it wishes to do so." Among these are conspiracies to kill or kidnap the president and other government officials, to steal trade secrets and to produce "defective national defense material."
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers urged the justices to find an overt-act requirement in the money-laundering conspiracy statute. The group's brief said that the absence of such a requirement "would give federal prosecutors unbridled discretion to bring such prosecutions whenever and wherever they choose, implicating constitutional due process principles and concerns about a statute that was already very broad."
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist voted in the case, Whitfield v. United States, No. 03-1293, although he was not on the bench when it was argued on Nov. 30. The chief justice, who is being treated for thyroid cancer, has returned to work in his chambers, but he is not participating in the argument sessions. Although the justices have generally kept up their usual pace of work during his prolonged absence, it was somewhat surprising that the court issued just one decision on Tuesday, its first decision day since returning from a four-week recess.
Never think.But the government doesn't have to prove that I thought about it. Only that I could have thought about it.
though crimes take a step closer to the overt from the covert.
If you don't have the opportunity to think criminal thoughts, you have nothing to worry about.
The government is our friend. They are doubleplusgood.
If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it.
Do *not* assume this is an accident.
its for the children.
The more I think about this decision, the less I like it. Twould not have been legislating from the bench to have declared the entire nutty concept unconstitutional. Convicting and jailing people for PLANNING something they never implement is wrong. What if two guys who had never been in trouble decided they were gonna rob a bank. They make their plan, but when they pull up in front of the bank, they come to their senses and decide they'd be better off to go get jobs. We jail them anyway? I realize the law is intended for a different set of circumstances, but anytime you start punishing people before they DO anything, you're on a slippery slope to Thought Crimes.
MM
To be honest, I disagree with this ruling. Thoughts do no harm and to think about doing something illegal, even to talk about it with others does not create injury.
We should be punishing actions, not thoughts. I can see a very Orwellian future where there are thought police.
Perhaps they were writing a novel.
Let's see ... GMIC ... might that be pronounced Gim-ick?
It's good that the court didn't legislate, but the legislature needs to fix it STAT because this nonsense could be a hideous tool in the hands of prosecutors who are chapped over a pesky lack of evidence.Excellent comment worth bumping to the top.
So - does this mean one of us can successfully take CBS to court for their conspiracy to influence an election?
Money laundering. Sounds vaguely familiar.
All your thoughts are belong to us.
This was a ways beyond thinking. Communication was required, and communication is in itself a volitional act.
Now anyone the Feds can convict anyone they don't like who has BS'd about crime with friends over a beer, or worked colaboratively on a crime or caper novel, or on a crime based computer game if they have included money laundering in the plot.
What Imbecility.
SO9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.