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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT