Federal Money Laundering Charges and Defenses

Money laundering charges are added to fraud indictments for a specific reason: they increase the sentencing exposure and they are difficult to defend against once the predicate offense is established.

The federal money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, address the concealment, promotion, and processing of proceeds from specified unlawful activities. They are not peripheral charges. In complex financial fraud cases, the money laundering counts frequently carry guidelines calculations that exceed those produced by the underlying fraud, because the laundering statute’s specific offense characteristics are calibrated to the transaction amounts rather than the net loss, and because the concealment element adds enhancements that the fraud statute does not.

Section 1956: The Promotional and Concealment Offenses

18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1) prohibits financial transactions involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity where the defendant knows the property represents such proceeds and acts with one of three alternative intents: the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; knowledge that the transaction is designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds; or knowledge that the transaction is designed to avoid a transaction reporting requirement.

The promotional theory, laundering proceeds to advance the underlying criminal activity, and the concealment theory, laundering proceeds to hide their criminal origin, are the two most frequently charged theories in white-collar cases. The concealment theory requires proof that the defendant knew the transaction was designed to conceal. It does not require proof that the concealment was successful or that the government was actually deceived. A financial transaction conducted with the intent to conceal, even one that failed, satisfies the element.

Section 1957: The Transactional Offense

18 U.S.C. 1957 is the simpler and more broadly applicable of the two laundering statutes. It prohibits any monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than ten thousand dollars, where the defendant knows the property is criminally derived. The provision requires no intent to promote or conceal. It requires only knowledge that the funds involved in the transaction came from criminal activity.

The practical consequence of Section 1957’s simplicity is that any defendant who received proceeds from a fraud scheme and then used those proceeds to pay ordinary expenses, bills, rent, or business costs may be charged with money laundering for each transaction exceeding ten thousand dollars. The payment of a legitimate debt with fraudulently obtained funds is a Section 1957 violation if the defendant knew the funds were criminally derived. The defendant who received a single wire transfer of fraud proceeds and then distributed those proceeds in multiple transactions has potentially committed multiple Section 1957 offenses.

The Merger Problem

One of the most significant defenses available in federal money laundering cases is the merger doctrine: the argument that the financial transactions charged as money laundering were so integral to the charged fraud that they constitute the fraud itself rather than a separate laundering offense. Courts have recognized that when the same transaction both constitutes the fraud and is charged as the laundering of the fraud’s proceeds, the two charges merge improperly and the laundering count should not be sustained.

The merger argument has met with varying success across circuits and in different factual contexts. Its strength depends on the specific structure of the alleged scheme and the precise transactions charged as laundering. Where the laundering transactions are genuinely distinct from the fraudulent transactions in the underlying scheme, the merger argument is weaker. Where the same transfer of funds is simultaneously the fraudulent act and the charged laundering transaction, the argument is stronger.

Money laundering charges added to a fraud indictment do not merely expand the exposure. They change the structure of the guidelines calculation, add sentencing enhancements that the fraud statute does not contain, and create separate exposure for every financial transaction in the relevant period. The defendant who treats the laundering counts as secondary to the fraud counts is the defendant who may be more surprised by the sentencing outcome than by the conviction.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted Multi-State Licensed Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

Sentencing Implications

The guidelines calculate money laundering offense levels based on the value of the funds involved in the laundering transactions, not the net loss from the underlying fraud. A fraud scheme with a net loss of five hundred thousand dollars may involve money laundering transactions of several million dollars if the scheme involved multiple transactions and the reinvestment of proceeds. The laundering guideline calculation may produce a higher offense level than the fraud calculation, and the applicable guideline is the one producing the greater offense level.

Defense strategies that address money laundering charges must account for both the substantive legal defenses available and the sentencing consequences of various disposition options. Plea agreements that resolve the fraud counts while preserving a laundering count may produce guidelines ranges that exceed what an agreement resolving all counts would generate. The interaction between the two sets of guidelines calculations requires careful analysis before any plea is entered.