United States v. Cabrales
1998 U.S. LEXIS 3568, 141 L. Ed. 2d 1, 524 U.S. 1 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a substantive money laundering offense, venue is proper only in the district where the financial transaction constituting the crime occurred, not in the district where the underlying criminal activity that generated the funds took place, unless the defendant is also charged with a linking offense such as conspiracy or transportation of the funds between districts.
Facts:
- Illegal sales of cocaine occurred in Missouri, generating illicit funds.
- Vickie S. Cabrales came into possession of funds derived from the Missouri cocaine sales.
- In January 1991, Cabrales deposited $40,000 of these funds into the AmSouth Bank of Florida.
- Within a week, Cabrales made four separate withdrawals of $9,500 each from the same bank in Florida.
- All of Cabrales's actions related to depositing and withdrawing the funds took place exclusively within the state of Florida.
- The indictment did not allege that Cabrales transported the funds from Missouri to Florida.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Vickie S. Cabrales in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on two substantive money laundering counts and one conspiracy count.
- Cabrales filed a motion to dismiss the two substantive money laundering counts (Counts II and III) for improper venue.
- The District Court, a trial court, granted Cabrales's motion and dismissed Counts II and III.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal, with Cabrales as the appellee.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is venue for a substantive money laundering offense proper in the judicial district where the laundered funds were generated, even if all financial transactions constituting the laundering occurred entirely in another district?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. Venue for a substantive money laundering offense is not proper in the district where the funds were generated if all of the defendant's acts constituting the financial transaction occurred entirely in another district. The Constitution requires that a trial be held where the crime was 'committed.' To determine the location of the crime, courts must look to the 'nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.' The money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957, criminalize the financial transaction itself, not the antecedent crime that produced the funds. Here, all the charged transactions—the deposit and withdrawals—occurred in Florida. The origin of the money in Missouri is an essential element of the crime, but it does not make the laundering a 'continuing offense' that was 'begun' in Missouri for venue purposes. Because the indictment does not charge Cabrales with conspiracy or with transporting funds from Missouri, her crime was completed entirely in Florida, making Missouri an improper venue for the substantive money laundering counts.
Analysis:
This decision strictly defines the scope of venue for 'after-the-fact' crimes like money laundering, reinforcing that venue is a defendant's constitutional right, not a matter of prosecutorial convenience. It clarifies that venue cannot be established in the district of the underlying predicate offense merely because the funds originated there. The ruling forces prosecutors who wish to try a money launderer in the same district as the underlying crime to include 'linking' charges, such as conspiracy or illegal transportation of funds, that connect the defendant's actions to that district. This reinforces the 'locus delicti' principle, requiring a careful analysis of the specific acts criminalized by a statute to determine the proper location for trial.
