In 381 F.3d 160, 168 (3d Cir. 2004), the Third Circuit explained United States v. Grasso, the breadth of the money laundering statute: To be sure, 18 U.S.C. §1956 criminalizes financial transactions that satisfy the conventional understanding of money laundering-namely, transactions intended “to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). But it is equally unlawful under the statute to engage in a financial transaction, knowing that the property involved represents the proceeds of unlawful activity, the intent to “with promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(A)(i). In other words, the money laundering statute prohibits not only the concealment of proceeds, but also the promotion of illegal activity. In 998 F.2d 1212, 1218 (3d Cir. 1993), the court held that the United States v. Paramo, law does not require that the defendant back” the proceeds into the unlawful activity. The “plow court concluded that defendant can engage in financial transactions that promote not only “a ongoing or future unlawful activity, but also prior unlawful activity” and rejected the defendant’s that the district court erred by instructing the jury that they could convict [the defendant] “claim if he promoted the carrying on of a mail fraud.’” ‘past (Revised 2017)
In United States v. Grasso, 381 F.3d 160, 168 (3d Cir. 2004), the Third Circuit explained the breadth of the money laundering statute: To be sure, 18 U.S.C. §1956 criminalizes financial transactions that satisfy the conventional understanding of money laundering-namely, transactions intended “to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). But it is equally unlawful under the statute to engage in a financial transaction, knowing that the property involved represents the proceeds of unlawful activity, “with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(A)(i). In other words, the money laundering statute prohibits not only the concealment of proceeds, but also the promotion of illegal activity. In United States v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1218 (3d Cir. 1993), the court held that the law does not require that the defendant “plow back” the proceeds into the unlawful activity. The court concluded that “a defendant can engage in financial transactions that promote not only ongoing or future unlawful activity, but also prior unlawful activity” and rejected the defendant’s “claim that the district court erred by instructing the jury that they could convict [the defendant] if he promoted the carrying on of a ‘past mail fraud.’” (Revised 2017)
2017%20Chap%206%20MoneyLaundering%20revisions%20final.docx