Justices to Hear Challenge to Money-Laundering Law

The New York Times ^ | Oct. 16, 2007 | Linda Greenhouse

[Publius Valerius]

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether hiding the proceeds of an illegal activity, like a drug transaction, can be prosecuted as money laundering under federal law.

This straightforward statutory question has roiled the lower federal courts, prompting a complaint by two conservative members of the federal appeals court in New Orleans earlier this year that the government’s expansive interpretation of the most commonly used money-laundering statute amounted to “prosecution run amok.”

That complaint, which came in a dissenting opinion, was perhaps what led the Supreme Court to decide, over the Justice Department’s opposition, to review the decision that had prompted it. The case is an appeal by a man who was stopped on a Texas highway on his way to the Mexican border and found to be carrying $83,000 in cash hidden under the floorboards of his car.

[Publius Valerius]

An interesting question, I thought.

What are the thoughts here? For purposes of the money laundering laws, should "conceal" mean simply to secret, or does it mean disguising the proceeds of ill-gotten money in such a way as to make it appear legitimate?

[Always Right]

Unless the money was gotten illegally, it should not be considered money laundering.

[swain_forkbeard]

As I read the law, as it was presented in the article, the concealed transport of the money out of the country is illegal, if and only if the government proved that the money was profit from a crime.

[Publius Valerius]

I think the assumption here is that the money is proceeds from illegal activity. I think the bigger question is what actions are necessary to “conceal” the money? Does it mean to physically hide the money, as the man did here, or does it mean trying to disguise its origins?

Here, the man hid the money in the floorboard of his car. Should that be “concealing” for the purposes of a money laundering statute?

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

without attempting to address the semantics, I’d say that this doesn’t amount to “money laundering” unless the money (in large part, anyways) re-appears somewhere with the appearance of having been acquired legitimately.....which to me seems that it would need to be deposited or otherwise declared openly......not just spent as cash. If this goes forward as “money-laundering” only on the basis of it having been obtained thru illegal activity, then the money every illegal alien illegally working while here is also “money laundering” when he sends it to mexico or wherever.

[SERKIT]

They don’t have the b*lls to apply the same standard to election laws and campaign funding with funny-money (i.e. Clintons, Hsu, Chinese Monks, Chi-Com Generals, LORAL, etc.).

[TChris]

Here, the man hid the money in the floorboard of his car. Should that be “concealing” for the purposes of a money laundering statute?

I think it's pretty obvious from the intent of the money laundering legislation that physically hiding the money is not what they were talking about. Some lawyers love to stomp all over the plain meaning of text in bizarre ways.

If we are to believe the prosecutors, any time someone steals cash and puts it in his pocket, he is guilty of "money laundering", because it's hidden from view.

[traditional1]

"then the money every illegal alien illegally working while here is also “money laundering” when he sends it to mexico or wherever."

Hey...that's not a bad idea at all. Gains from illegal entrants should be confiscated, the perps should be deported, and that would be a good incentive not to come where WE DON'T WANT YOU !

Now, could this be expanded to include the employers as a RICO enterprise, using KNOWN illegals as labor for personal gain?

Hmmmmmmmm

[art_rocks]

What happens if you report the money to the IRS and pay taxes?

[swain_forkbeard]

I read it again, and again I think the activity in question meets the specification in the law.

“transportation or transmission designed to ‘conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control’ of the proceeds of illegal activity.”

Transportation - Definitely.

Conceal the location - Definitely. Under the floorboards, to me, is concealing the location. Interestingly, if the money had been in a bag in the trunk, which is a normal way to carry anything in a car, then I don’t think it would qualify.

Proceeds of illegal activity - you told me to take that as a given. But I don’t know how this was proved.

So, whether I like the law as written or not, I think this was money laundering.