United States v. Wayne Anderson

concurring:

I concur in the majority’s opinion, except for its analysis of bank fraud as “specified unlawful activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(3). I agree that Anderson’s conviction must be reversed because the undercover agent represented that the $100,000 he gave Anderson was fraudulently obtained from his clients rather than “a financial institution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2). Although we need go no further, the majority did. I therefore do not agree that we must also reverse on the ground that the agent failed to represent to Anderson that the financial institutions allegedly involved were federally insured.

*613 “To require government agents to ... specific[ally]” name defrauded banks or inform suspected money launderers that the victimized banks are federally insured “Mould make it difficult for undercover agents to enforce [section 1956], as real criminals would be unlikely to state explicitly[which banks were] the source of their funds.” United States v. Nelson, 66 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir.1995). The majority’s holding “[c]ould be too costly in the verisimilitude vital to sting operations,” United States v. Wydermyer, 51 F.3d 319, 327 (2d Cir.1995), cited with approval in…

371 F.3d 606 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-10600. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted January 14, 2004. Filed June 10, 2004. Michael L. Ware, Fort Worth, TX; Hill Snellings, Sacramento, CA; Michael L. Minns, Houston, TX, for defendant-appellant. Benjamin B. Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-00180-1-LKK. Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. NOONAN, Circuit Judge: 1 Wayne Anderson appeals the judgment of the district court convicting him of conspiracy and money laundering. Holding that the government failed to specify one of the offenses identified by 18 U.S.C. § 1956 as an offense permissibly represented in a sting operation, we reverse Anderson's conviction of money laundering. We affirm his conviction of conspiracy. FACTS 2 Suspicious that an organization named Anderson Ark & Associates (AAA) was engaged in facilitating income tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud,…

Wayne Anderson appeals the judgment of the district court convicting him of conspiracy and money laundering. Holding that the government failed to specify one of the offenses identified by 18 U.S.C. § 1956 as an offense permissibly represented in a sting operation, we reverse Anderson’s conviction of money laundering. We affirm his conviction of conspiracy-

FACTS

Suspicious that an organization named Anderson Ark & Associates (AAA) was engaged in facilitating income tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud, agents of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began an investigation followed by a series of stings that led to the arrest and conviction of several participants in this international organization. We summarize here evidence relevant to two stings implicating Anderson:

1. The Conspiracy To Commit Bankruptcy Fraud. In October of 2000, IRS Agent James Dowling posing as “Jim Mitchell” informed Richard Marks that he had $60,000 in cashier’s checks that he wanted to hide from a bankruptcy court. Marks, an employee of AAA, put Dowling in touch with Karolyn Grosnickle, AAA’s chief administrative officer. On behalf of AAA she accepted the checks and told Dowling that the funds would be sent…