These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
money laundering
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that for the purpose of assessing whether an offense constitutes a money laundering aggravated felony, the circumstance-specific appproach applies to the requirement that the “amount of the funds exceeded $10,000.”
The full text of Matter of Dominguez Reyes can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that several federal money laundering statutes do not meet the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude. The court also applied the categorical approach in denaturalization proceedings.
The full text of United States v. Lopez can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112709.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that a New York conviction attempted money laundering in the second degree is not a crime involving moral turpitude because the statute does not impose the scienter requirement needed to constitute a CIMT. “Although the statute requires the defendant’s knowledge that the financial transaction is ‘designed to . . . conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control of the proceeds of specified criminal conduct,’ it does not require that the offender act with the ‘evil intent’ that the BIA has considered to be inherent in a CIMT: that is, an intention to conceal the underlying criminal activity that created the proceeds, to impair government function, or to deceive the government.“
The full text of Jang v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/6e78bae4-78ad-4640-8871-e1e0059d8c70/5/doc/19-4289_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/6e78bae4-78ad-4640-8871-e1e0059d8c70/5/hilite/
An amended opinion ca be found here:
The Second Circuit has addressed the federal statute criminalizing conspiracy to commit money laundering, and has determined that a conviction under 18 USC 1956(h) can properly qualify as a money laundering-related aggravated felony under INA section 101(a)(43)(D). The court rejected the argument that a conspiracy conviction, such as the one at issue in this case, must be charged under INA section 101(a)(43)(U). In addition, the court determined that a forfeiture order was sufficient to establish that the offense involved more than $10,000 in laundered funds, even though a forfeiture order may include legitimately obtained funds, and need only been proven by the prosecution by a preponderance of the evidence, while the Department of Homeland Security must prove the offense involved more than $10,000 in laundered funds by clear and convincing evidence.
The full text of Barikyan v. Barr can be found here:
In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that a dismissed indictment for conspiracy to commit money laundery, without more, is not sufficient to demonstrate that an applicant engaged in money laundering.
"Even assuming that participation in a conspiracy to commit money laundering constitutes 'reason to believe' that the participant in fact engaged in money laundering, the evidence in this case falls short. A dismissed indictment, without more, does not constitute “reason to believe” that the defendant committed the crime charged."
This language may provide valuable argumentation for lawyers dealing with "reason to believe" standards, such as those related to drug trafficking.
The full text of Obeid v. Lynch can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2016/07/21/13-70693.pdf
The Ninth Circuit evaluated a federal conviction for money laundering conspiracy this week, and determined that the conviction could be an aggravated felony involving fraud with loss to the victim in excess of $10,000. To determine the amount of loss to the victim, it was appropriate to employ the circumstance specific approach and consult the pre-sentencing report. It was not, however, appropriate, to consider the allegations of overt acts in the indictment to calculate the loss to the victim, as overt acts are not required to prove a conspiracy, and thus, the petitioner's conviction did not rest upon those acts.
The full text of Arce-Fuentes v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/06/10/11-73131.pdf
