United States v. Joseph R. Koller
956 F. 2d 1408, 1992 WL 39213 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the federal money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), the use of a financial institution to conduct a transaction need only be incidental to the overall criminal scheme; the design to conceal the ownership of illicit funds does not have to occur at the financial institution itself.
Facts:
- Joseph Koller's girlfriend, Jane Vossekuil, was in state custody for a probation violation because she failed to pay her restitution obligation.
- Vossekuil called Koller from custody and asked him to pay the restitution for her.
- Koller agreed to pay and indicated to Vossekuil that he would obtain some of the money from outstanding drug debts.
- Koller went to the probation office and attempted to pay Vossekuil's obligation with over $2,000 in cash, but the probation officer, Ms. Ware, refused to accept cash.
- Ms. Ware instructed Koller that he needed to obtain a money order.
- Koller then went to a nearby Security Bank, used the cash to purchase a money order, and truthfully told the teller the money was to get his girlfriend out of jail.
- He returned to the probation office with the money order to pay the obligation.
- When Ms. Ware asked Koller for his name to write on the receipt, he gave his first name as "Gerald" in an effort to conceal his identity as the source of the funds.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Koller was charged in a multi-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the court of first instance.
- A jury found Koller guilty on all counts, including conspiracy to distribute cocaine, money laundering, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.
- The district court sentenced Koller to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 27 years.
- Koller, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's conduct constitute money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) when the design to conceal his identity occurs not in the purchase of a money order from a financial institution, but in the subsequent delivery of that money order to a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Fairchild, J.
Yes, the defendant's conduct constitutes money laundering. To violate 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), a person must conduct a financial transaction with illicit proceeds knowing that the transaction is designed to conceal the ownership or source of those proceeds. In this case, there were two key transactions: the purchase of the money order at the bank and the transfer of that money order to the probation officer. The purchase of the money order satisfied the statutory requirement of a 'financial transaction' involving a financial institution with an interstate commerce nexus. The subsequent act of giving a false name to the probation officer provided sufficient evidence of a design to conceal the defendant's identity as the owner of the funds. The court reasoned that the statute does not literally require that the use of the financial institution be part of, contribute to, or facilitate the design to conceal. The use of the bank can be incidental to the overall scheme, and as long as a financial transaction and a design to conceal are both present in the course of conduct, the elements of the crime are met.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the federal money laundering statute by decoupling the 'financial transaction' element from the 'design to conceal' element. It establishes that these two components do not need to occur simultaneously or be causally linked at the financial institution itself. By allowing the use of the financial institution to be merely 'incidental' to the broader concealment scheme, the ruling broadens the statute's reach to cover multi-step transactions where the legally significant act of concealment happens after the interaction with the bank is complete. This prevents defendants from evading liability by structuring transactions so that their dealings with financial institutions appear innocent on their face, while the deceptive conduct occurs elsewhere.
