Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Money Laundering Defense After Santos and Regaldo Cuellar
By Barry Boss; John May; Matt Swerdlin
Money, it’s a crime.
— Pink Floyd1
For some time, prosecutors and money laundering charges have had a
romantic relationship. For many years, the breadth of the statute was
matched only by its draconian sentencing guideline ranges. In 2001, the
Sentencing Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 to tie offense
levels for money laundering more closely to the underlying conduct that
was the source of the criminally derived funds.2 Many
expected that this amendment would eviscerate the plea bargaining
leverage that prosecutors obtained when they included such charges in an
indictment, and as a result, there would be a precipitous decrease in
the number of money laundering cases brought. But, for reasons that are
unclear, prosecutors continued to charge money laundering even in
“mine-run” cases.3 Fortunately, recent developments,
including most significantly the Supreme Court money laundering
decisions during its 2007-08 term, may signal a sea change in how courts
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.