Proposals to Reform the Federal Money Laundering Statutes
page 9
The spending of any funds in an existing business, as opposed to an expansion of the alleged criminal conduct, has been held to constitute promotion by some courts. 13 Others demand greater proof that the transaction in question promoted the business ’ illegal activities. 14
Ultimately, the statutory language is extremely difficult to work with and is subject to different
interpretations, producing dramatically different results, from circuit to circuit, and case to case. 15
Because of these problems — and because one who commits promotion is liable as an aider and
abettor or co-conspirator in the underlying offense — this prong of § 1956 should be repealed.
13 See, e.g., United States v. Morelli, 169 F.3d 798 (3d Cir. 1999); United States v. Savage, 67 F.3d 1435 (9 th Cir. 1995) (funds transfer, which provided defendant with travel resources and “ aura ” of legitimacy, promoted scheme). 14 See United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832 (7 th Cir. 1991) (where defendant was both a drug dealer and a preacher, checks written for beepers, cellular phones and rent may have helped the defendant ’ s “ life style ” but did not establish an intent to promote); United States v. Brown, 186 F.3d 661 (5 th Cir. 1999) (funds that paid for parts, floor plans, software, used cars and other materials did not promote the fraud but supported the car dealership ’ s legitimate activities); United States v. Olaniyi-Oke, 199 F.3d 767 (5 th Cir. 1999) (no promotion where proceeds of illegal credit card scheme were used to purchase computers at two different businesses not involved in the scheme). 15 See generally Jimmy Gurule, The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986: Creating a New Federal Offense of Merely Affording Federal Prosecutors an Alternative Means of Punishing Specified Unlawful Activity?, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 823 (1995).
Made with FlippingBook Online document maker