United States v. Wayne Anderson

concurring:

I concur in the majority’s opinion, except for its analysis of whether the funds Mitchell sought to launder were sufficiently “represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(3). My view is that Mitchell adequately represented that the funds were proceeds of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 , because the government was not required to represent that the financial institutions purportedly involved were federally insured. I would therefore affirm Anderson’s money laundering conviction.

“To require government agents to ... specifically]” name defrauded banks or inform suspected money launderers that the victimized banks are federally insured “[c]ould make it difficult for undercover agents to enforce [section 1956], as real criminals would be unlikely to state explie-itly[whieh 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 Nelson, 66 F.3d at 1041 , and may serve no useful purpose in cases where…

391 F.3d 970 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. Amended December 14, 2004. Michael L. Ware, Fort Worth, TX; Hill Snelling, Sacramento, CA; Michael L. Minns, Houston, TX, for the defendant-appellant. Benjamin B. Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for the 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. 1 Opinion by Judge Noonan; Concurrence by Judge Wallace ORDER 2 The opinion filed on June 10, 2004 is amended as follows: 3 Slip opinion, p.7677, strike the last ¶ , beginning "In its effort". 4 Slip opinion, p. 7678, Strike the first ¶ , beginning "As to the first element". Substitute for these 2 paragraphs the following: The first element was proved by Mitchell's statements to the banks that his customers were unable to make all the lease payments, which induced the banks to forgive the…

Opinion by Judge NOONAN; Concurrence by Judge WALLACE

ORDER

The opinion filed on June 10, 2004 is amended as follows:

Slip opinion, p. 7677, strike the last ¶ , beginning “In its effort”.

Slip opinion, p. 7678, Strike the first ¶, beginning “As to the first element”. Substitute for these 2 paragraphs the following:

Slip opinion p.7678, ¶ 2, Strike: “Even assuming that the government claimed that the money was obtained from a bank”. Capitalize “The”.

With these changes made, the petitions for rehearing are DENIED. Judge Wallace would grant appellee’s petition for rehearing.

Subsequent petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc may be filed.

OPINION

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…