Replies

12.05.05 - FlAttorney, and several of his colleagues, attended the Houston campaign fundraiser for Tom DeLay tonight, which was attended by VP Dick Cheney. I also noted FLA was quoted in the National Media regarding Judge Priest's rulings today.

FLA will have a post in "The DeLay Chronicles" on the ruling today by Judge Priest, along with his Houston fundraiser attendance, when he returns to Miami. Overall, the ruling today was positive for DeLay, and Judge Priest made it basically impossible for Earle to succeed on his manufactured money laundering charges against DeLay. - TAB

12.05.05 - Video: Judge Ruling & DeLay Houston Fundraiser
12.05.05 - PDF File: Judge Priest's Indictments Ruling-12pgs

12.05.05 - Tom DeLay and wife Christine arrive at Houston campaign fundraiser

Priest's ruling has a distinctly rotted oder. To wit:

1) He stated that "a person commits the offense of money laundering if he knowingly conducts, supervises, or facilitates a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity (any offense, including preparatory offense)".

"Proceeds" under Texas law are "funds" derived FROM, produced through, or realized through a (criminal) act."

Priest apparently believes that the criminal act was not the individual actions but that "if one solicits corporate contributions with an intent to divert the funds to a candidate a violation by the diverter occurs when the funds are so diverted" or if "corporate contributions are received for a lawful purpose and then diverted for an unlawful purpose, the violation OCCURING when the funds are so diverted and actually distributed to individual candidates".

However, he then makes reference to an "incomplete crime" and states the money was "dirty" (proceeds from or produced through a criminal act) at the moment of its collection and holding and that any transaction with this 'dirty' money is, therefore, money laundering.

I find his thinking muddy and (for the most part) to be incorrect

First, there is no such thing as a 'proto' crime. Either it is a crime at a moment in time or it is not. By his own admission it is only a crime when the money is actually given or received by the candidate. Money "from" (vs "to" use in) a crime can only be dirty when the crime is committed and the funds are from or produced by that activity (actually giving to a candidate), prior intentions not with standing. It is the "gift" that is a crime under the election code (not collections and holding)...it is the "gift" that generates (produces) funds that cannot be "laundered" (used in transactions).

His error is that he ignores that the the 'proceeds' are not "from" a criminal activity (from violating the election code) but used "to" facilitate a criminal activity (which is only a criminal act when it is completed).

By Priest's reasoning, money laundering must include 'any transaction' of funds either from, devoted to, or a part of a criminal activity (e.g. getting a loan to purchase crowbars to break into a house must be money laundering.)

If so, Priest's novel understanding would make every crime committed anywhere "money laundering" (e.g. buying gas on credit to drive to the supermarket to steal a steak is "money laundering" using Priest infantile reasoning).

Does he not know the history of money laundering law and its intent? Has he only skimmed his case law?

In his own list of case law, every act of "money laundering" is based on a predicate act and a realized gain (proceeds) - none include any transaction used to facilitate a crime as a 'Proceed'.

BTW - If conspiracy to violate the election code had been upheld, money laundering could have been charged. The criminal act (conspiracy) would have generated (produced)money transactions (the realized gains).

Second, I think he is wrong on the use of checks. But I'll save that....