A Money Laundering Question Page 1 of 2 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Cassella, Stefan Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:14 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: A Money Laundering Question Aside from cases where there is a representation as to the nature of the money by a law enforcement agent (sting cases; 1956(a)(3)), or cases involving the international transfer of funds (intl money laundering; 1956(a)(2)(A)), all money laundering offenses under 1956 and 1957 require proof that the money actually was SUA proceeds. There is no provision, in other words, for "reverse money laundering" — i.e., the process of sending money from one place to another for the purpose of promoting a future criminal act. This is a problem in our money laundering statutes that we've asked Congress to fix. (Ironically, the State of Florida has a state reverse money laundering statute that might apply to your facts.) There are some other possibilities, however. If the money was sent via a money remitter, there could be a violation of 1960(b)(1)(C) (sending funds through a money remitting business knowing that they were intended to be used for an illegal purpose). Also, since the end result of this transaction was the promotion of a prostitution offense, you could have a violation of 1952 (using a facility in interstate commerce to promote a state prostitution offense). Please let me know if either of these work for you. Stef From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAF'S) [mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:00 PM To: Cassella, Stefan Subject: RE: A Money Laundering Question Thank you, Stcf. I must admit that your answer doesn't make me happy. Do you think that there is any other type of money laundering that I could charge? A. Marie Villafaiia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561 820-8711 Fax 561 820-8777 [email protected] From: Cassella, Stefan Sent: Thursday, Mardi 22, 2007 3:10 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: A Money Laundering Question Marie, We have always taken the position that a sting offense — i.e., a violation of 1956a3 - requires proof of a representation that the property involved in the transaction was either A) SUA proceeds, or B) property used to facilitate. In other words, contrary to your construction of the statute, we think the representation element applies to both of the phrases that follow, and not just to the proceeds. I could go into detail regarding the elements of 1956(a)(3) and its legislative history 'f necessary (we did a memo on this to counsel for one of the agencies many years ago), but I think the reason you haven't found any case law on this is that we've discouraged bringing any prosecutions based on this reading of the statute. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-010285 4/23/2007 EXIII13IT 56 EFTA00226082