ILNews

SCOTUS quiet on money-laundering case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The nation's highest court hasn't yet ruled on an East Chicago case involving money laundering, but that could be because justices are waiting to hear a similar case before making a decision.

Indianapolis attorney Todd Vare with Barnes & Thornburg argued before the Supreme Court of the United States Oct. 3, but so far the court hasn't issued a decision on U.S. v. Efrain Santos, No. 06-1005.

Ten of the 14 cases argued that month have been ruled on, as well as other cases argued before the justices since October.

One possible reason the court hasn't ruled yet is that it's going to consider another similar case at the same time, said Vare, who represents Santos. Less than two weeks after his arguments last fall, justices accepted Cuellar v. U.S., No. 06-1456, that deals with the question of whether merely hiding funds without trying to make that money appear "clean" or "laundered" is sufficient to support a money-laundering conviction.

Arguments are set for Monday morning, and Vare anticipates the court will decide both simultaneously.

"It's possible - now quite probable - that the court will issue opinions in both cases on the same day," Vare said, adding that he hopes the delay will bode well for his client.

In Santos, the court is considering the definition of money laundering and the word "proceeds" as it's used in the federal statute. Federal Circuit Courts, including the 7th Circuit in Chicago, do not agree on an exact definition and have disagreed about whether it's considered money laundering to pay for the operation of a criminal enterprise with the profits of that illegal business. The nation's high court will determine whether the ban on the use of "proceeds" of a crime to promote or conceal it - "laundering" the proceeds - applies to the total amount of money or only the profits after expenses.

Specifically, this case involves the federal prosecution of an old tavern lottery raid where Santos - known as "Puerto Rican Frankie" - was arrested for running the illegal operation throughout northwest Indiana from the 1970s to 1994. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 1998, but he was later released after the 7th Circuit heard two other cases in 2000 and 2002 and issued rulings that changed the interpretation of money laundering.

Following those decisions, U.S. District Judge James Moody in Hammond ruled that Santos' actions were no longer considered money laundering because of an interpretation of "net proceeds" and "gross proceeds" in federal laws.

Vare took Santos' case as part of the 7th Circuit's pro bono appointment program.

The Cuellar case deals with the concealment prong of the statute, while Santos involves the "promotion" prong of the statute, Vare said. He recalled how several justices focused on how a ruling in Santos could affect cases arising under that concealment issue raised in Cuellar.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT