Federal Money Laundering

Image related with this article: Federal Money Laundering
Federal law prohibits the laundering of money instruments under 18 U.S.C. §1956. The section applies to transactions in connection with a wide variety of unlawful activities. This gives law enforcement wide latitude to bring money laundering charges against offenders.

Federal law prohibits the laundering of money instruments under 18 U.S.C. §1956. The section applies to transactions in connection with a wide variety of unlawful activities. This gives law enforcement wide latitude to bring money laundering charges against offenders.

Broadly, the section prohibits financial transactions involving the proceeds of unlawful activity. The statute establishes a clear mens rea, or criminal mindset, requirement, stating that the offense must occur knowingly, and with either the intent to promote further unlawful activity or the intent to violate §§7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code. The mens rea requirement can also be met when the offender knows that the transaction is designed to conceal the proceeds or unlawful activity, or to avoid transaction reporting requirements. Notably, the transaction is considered unlawful even if the property was only represented as unlawful, provided the offender had the requisite mindset. Penalties for such offenses include fines of up to $500,000, or twice the value of the property, whichever is greater. The statute also provides for a prison sentence of up to twenty years in addition to financial penalties. Money laundering has an extraterritorial facet, penalizing offenders with identical sentences for the transport, transmission, or transfer of funds outside of the United States, so long as the money is knowingly or intentionally connected to unlawful activity, whether through concealment, promoting the further carrying on of unlawful activity, or avoiding legally imposed transaction reporting requirements. In addition to criminal penalties, §1956(b) imposes civil penalties for money laundering offenses. Depending on the severity of the offense, the offender is liable to the United States for either the value of the property, funds, or monetary instruments, or $10,000, whichever is greater.

The statute also defines “specified unlawful activity,” indicating which sorts of unlawful activities money laundering may be tied to. The “unlawful activity” can include racketeering, controlled substance violations, murder, kidnapping, robbery, fraud, bribery, smuggling and export control violations, human trafficking, criminal enterprise offenses, federal health care offenses, and environmental crimes in violation of 33 U.S.C. §§1251, 1401, 1901, and 300f, as well as 42 U.S.C. §6901. §1956(c)(7)(D) also provides a list of additional “unlawful activities” in connection with money laundering, including destruction of aircraft, violence at international airports, retaliating against a Federal official, concealment of assets, bribery, certain counterfeiting offenses, goods falsely classified, entry of goods by means of false statements, smuggling goods into and away from the U.S., removing goods from Customs custody, border tunnel offenses, theft or bribery connecting to programs receiving Federal funds, espionage, nuclear materials and atomic weapons offenses, unlawful importation of firearms, fraudulent bank and Federal credit institution entries, fraudulent loan or credit applications, computer fraud, concealment of assets, murder of United States law enforcement officials, hostage taking, willful injury of government property, mail theft, assassination, child pornography, copyright infringement, trafficking counterfeit goods, terrorism offenses, and offenses involving weapons of mass destruction, among others.

Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a conviction under §1956 in United States v. Bindranauth, No. 22-10944, 2024 WL 4440291 (11th Cir. Oct. 8, 2024), illustrating both the required elements and permissible sentencing considerations for a money laundering offense. In Bindranauth, the defendant operated a money laundering scheme in which he, along with his co-conspirators, engaged in investment and romance scams, inducing victims into sending money to the defendant. The defendant then laundered the money through transfers to Nigerian bank accounts. On appeal, the defendant challenged his sentence and a jury instruction. Reviewing his arguments, the Court reiterated the burden carried in proving the knowledge element—that the government must show the defendant had knowledge that the funds came from “some form of unlawful activity.” The defendant argued that the government failed to prove actual knowledge, and therefore erred by giving a deliberate ignorance jury instruction. The evidence indicated that the defendant was repeatedly warned of the potential illegality of his actions but chose to ignore the warnings. Coupled with circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s actions, the Court found that no reversible error had been committed, because the alternative to deliberate ignorance was actual knowledge, and either mindset supported the conviction. The Court also found no error in the enhancement of the defendant’s sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The guidelines allow courts to consider six non-exclusive factors, including regular engagement in laundering funds, laundering funds for an extended period of time, generating substantial revenue, and laundering funds from multiple sources. The Court also reviewed the “sophisticated laundering” enhancement and the enhancement applying when a “defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity.” Finding sufficient evidence to support each enhancement, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s convictions and sentences.

Bindranauth demonstrates the relevance of the knowledge requirement within §1956. Although the statute encompasses a wide range of offenses in connection with money laundering, money laundering offenses require a guilty mind in some capacity. This important element is essential to support a money laundering conviction.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.

articles

latest news & insights

1 / 9
David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

In a case that made its way to the highest level of the state court system, the Alabama Supreme Court recently presided over an appeal beginning in Walker County. This case, Ex parte David Eugene Files, centers around a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. Files’ petition was dismissed by the Walker circuit court, with the dismissal being affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

read articles
Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

In a decision that affirms the admissibility and sufficiency of several distinct types of evidence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently presided over an appeal that found its roots in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

read articles
Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

How courts divide real property in a divorce. Learn more from Ingram Law, LLC.

read articles
Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

In a case that demonstrates the limits of alimony awards, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard the case of Larry Shearry v. Christy Spivey, as personal representative of the Estate of Charlotte Shearry.

read articles
Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

You are driving home late between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. You get pulled over because the police officer states you are driving over the line, driving too slow, have a head light out or you have a taillight out.

read articles
latest-news

The Crime of Stalking in Alabama

Another category of criminal offense in Alabama is stalking. Covered by Article 5, stalking includes offenses for stalking in the first and second degree, aggravated stalking in the first and second degree, and electronic stalking in the first and second degree.

read articles
Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

In a case that demonstrates the intricacies of equitable division of marital property, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently presided over an appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court in Jefferson County. The case of Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown illustrates the importance of maintaining a clear record on appeal and emphasizes the necessity of full disclosure when dividing marital assets.

read articles
Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

In a case illustrating the tumultuous and complicated proceedings for challenging a death sentence, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard the appeal of Brett Richard Yeiter v. State of Alabama, stemming from Escambia County. Yeiter’s case underscores the critical need to adhere to procedural requirements, especially in cases involving severe sentences.

read articles
latest-news

Trademark Infringement: Causes of Action Under the Lanham Act

Federal trademark law is primarily governed by the Lanham Trademark Act, also referred to as the Trademark Act of 1946. The Lanham Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. §§1051 to 1127, covers a wide range of trademark issues including registration, maintenance, protection, and the creation of a federal cause of action for trademark infringement.

read articles

schedule a consultation

Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo

Your path to get the right compensation starts here.