United States v. Rubashkin
2011 WL 4104922, 655 F.3d 849, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19080 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conducting financial transactions with fraudulently obtained loan proceeds to conceal their source constitutes a separate, punishable offense of money laundering that does not merge with the completed predicate offense of making false statements to a bank.
Facts:
- Sholom Rubashkin managed Agriprocessors, Inc., a kosher meatpacking company that had a large revolving loan with First Bank Business Capital.
- The loan was secured by Agriprocessors' collateral, primarily its accounts receivable.
- Under Rubashkin’s direction, employees created false invoices and bills of lading to artificially inflate the value of the company's accounts receivable, allowing it to borrow more money from the bank.
- Rubashkin also directed employees to divert customer payments from the bank-monitored account to a separate, secret account, and to delay recording these payments to further inflate the accounts receivable balance.
- To pay down the revolving loan and continue borrowing, Rubashkin instructed employees to transfer funds, which included fraudulently obtained loan proceeds, from Agriprocessors to a grocery store and a school that he controlled.
- The grocery store and school then wrote checks back to Agriprocessors, drawn in odd amounts to appear as genuine customer payments, which were then deposited into the bank-monitored account to pay down the loan.
Procedural Posture:
- Sholom Rubashkin was indicted on 163 counts, including financial fraud, money laundering, and immigration-related offenses.
- The district court severed the immigration counts from the financial counts and scheduled the financial charges to be tried first.
- The jury convicted Rubashkin of 86 counts, including bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and violations of a Department of Agriculture order.
- The district court sentenced Rubashkin to 324 months in prison.
- Two months after sentencing, Rubashkin filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that newly discovered evidence obtained via a FOIA request showed the trial judge was biased.
- The district court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Rubashkin appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial and the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 commit a separate offense of money laundering, which does not merge with the underlying fraud, when he funnels fraudulently obtained loan proceeds through third-party entities he controls to disguise them as legitimate customer payments to pay down the original loan?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, J.
Yes. Funneling fraudulently obtained loan proceeds through third parties to pay down the original loan constitutes a distinct offense of money laundering that does not merge with the underlying fraud. The court reasoned that there is no 'merger problem' as described in United States v. Santos because the predicate offense, making false statements to a bank, was complete the moment Rubashkin made the false statements and received the loan disbursements. The subsequent transactions—transferring the proceeds to the school and grocery store and then back to Agriprocessors to repay the loan—were not an essential element of the fraud itself but were separate acts designed to conceal the nature and source of the illegally obtained funds. This conduct fits squarely within the money laundering statute's prohibition on conducting transactions designed to 'conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds.' Unlike the Ponzi schemes in cases like Garland and Van Alstyne, where payments to early investors were integral to perpetuating the fraud, Rubashkin's scheme of routing money through third parties was an additional step taken to hide his wrongdoing, making it a classic, separately punishable money laundering transaction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'merger doctrine' from United States v. Santos in the context of bank fraud. By holding that the predicate offense of making false statements is completed upon disbursement of funds, the court establishes that subsequent transactions to conceal or disguise those funds are distinct offenses. This prevents defendants from arguing that such laundering activities are merely part of the 'cost of doing business' for the underlying fraud. The ruling strengthens the government's ability to prosecute complex financial fraud cases by allowing for separate charges and punishments for both the initial fraud and the subsequent efforts to hide the proceeds, reinforcing the distinct harm that money laundering poses.
