First, in United States v. Singh, --- F3d ---, No. 18-50423 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court affirmed Harinder Singh’s convictions and sentence for conspiracy to launder money (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)), conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 371), and operating such a business (18 U.S.C. § 1960), stemming from Singh’s involvement in a hawala operation, a money transmitting network that he and his coconspirators used to move drug trafficking proceeds from Canada to the United States and eventually to Mexico.
This is a split opinion, with Judge Watford dissenting in part.
The decision is fact heavy, focusing on sufficiency of the evidence challenges. But if you have a money laundering case, it is worth the read.
Although the district court did not explain all the elements of the crime during the Rule 11 colloquy, the Court found no error because the plea agreement tracked the language of the statute.
The Court also found no Fourth Amendment violations from the search of Mr. Peterson's cell phones because he was on parole with a 4th waiver.
