In the Courts

Ninth Circuit Rules Money Laundering and Mail Fraud Are Separate and Distinct

In United States v. Rogers , 321 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2003), appellant Rogers was convicted of one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1341 relating to the mailing of a cashier's check of $5000, and five counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1957 relating to the shuffling between accounts of larger amounts of funds. A conviction for money laundering under 18 U.S.C. ' 1957 requires the government to show: 1) the defendant knowingly engaged in a monetary transaction; 2) he or she knew the transaction involved criminal property; 3) the property's value exceeded $10,000; and 4) the property was derived from a specified unlawful activity. See United States v. Messer , 197 F.3d 330, 341 (9th Cir. 1999). Mail fraud is included as such a 'specified unlawful activity.' 18 U.S.C. ' 1957(f)(3); 18 U.S.C. ' 1956(c)(7)(A); 18 U.S.C. ' 1961(1). To establish mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. ' 1341, the government must establish: 1) proof of a scheme to defraud; 2) using or causing the use of the mails to further the fraudulent scheme; and 3) specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000).

On appeal, Rogers argued that because he was convicted of only one count of mail fraud involving a $5000 cashier's check, he could not have been convicted of money laundering in excess of the requisite statutory floor of $10,000. The court disagreed. The court held that money laundering and mail fraud are separate and distinct. The court explained, 'regardless of how much money Rogers personally, fraudulently solicited to form the basis of the mail fraud conviction, Rogers' conduct in laundering the money brought in by the entire Ponzi scheme is the relevant standard for determining if the elements of the money laundering statute have been met.' Rogers, 321 F.3d at 1229. Because it was apparent from the record that Rogers laundered proceeds from a larger operation that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, the court affirmed the conviction.