Pubdate: Tue, 3 Jun 2008
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A03
Copyright: 2008 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer
Referenced: The Santos decision http://drugsense.org/url/d8f2MSq
Referenced: The Cuellar decision http://drugsense.org/url/Bltnp3iN

VICTORIES FOR MONEY-LAUNDERING DEFENDANTS

The Supreme Court yesterday made it tougher for prosecutors to prove 
money-laundering charges, ruling twice against the government's 
employment of what it says is a critical weapon in fighting drug 
lords and other criminals.

The justices were unanimous in one case that merely proving that a 
person hid drug money while transporting it was not enough to satisfy 
the law's standard that the transportation was intended to disguise 
the "nature, location, the source, the ownership or the control" of the funds.

But the court was splintered in the other case, interpreting the law 
to refer only to the profits garnered from an illegal enterprise, 
rather than gross receipts. The government said that would make 
indictment far more difficult to prove.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a former prosecutor, led the dissenters 
in the 5 to 4 ruling, saying the opinion "would frustrate Congress' 
intent and maim a statute that was enacted as an important defense 
against organized criminal enterprises."

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote for a four-member plurality in the 
case, said that the money-laundering statute refers to criminal 
"proceeds" but that Congress did not define the word further to mean 
"receipts" or "profits."

"Under a long line of our decisions, the tie must go to the 
defendant," Scalia wrote, saying the "rule of lenity" requires the 
court to interpret the law in the light most favorable to those subject to it.

Justice John Paul Stevens broke what was in essence a 4 to 4 tie, 
saying that in this instance he thought "proceeds" referred to 
"profits." But he frustrated Scalia by saying that may not always be 
the case, especially in prosecution of organized-crime syndicates, on 
which he said Congress has been more clear.

Yesterday's decision came in United States v. Santos, in which Efrain 
Santos and Benedicto Diaz ran an illegal lottery in Indiana. They 
were convicted of several offenses, but a federal appeals court threw 
out the money-laundering charge. It said that transactions such as 
paying off winners and helpers in the enterprise did not qualify as 
criminal profits and thus could not be the basis for money-laundering charges.

Without such an interpretation, Scalia wrote, "nearly every violation 
of the illegal lottery statue would also be a violation of the 
money-laundering statute."

In the other case, Humberto Fidel Regalado Cuellar was stopped in 
2004 while driving erratically in southern Texas, headed for Mexico. 
He aroused further suspicion when, after telling officers they could 
search his car, began "making the sign of the cross," according to 
the opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Officers found 
$81,000 that smelled like marijuana under the floorboard.

Cuellar was found guilty of violating the money-laundering law.

Thomas disagreed with Cuellar's argument that the law requires proof 
that the defendant attempted to create the appearance that the money 
was legitimate. But it does require more than simply proving the 
money was concealed, the court found. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake