Cross-Border Money Laundering Prosecutions
📌 What Is Cross-Border Money Laundering?
Cross-border money laundering involves concealing the origins of illegally obtained money by moving it across international borders. This process is often designed to disguise the source, ownership, or control of the funds.
It is typically connected with:
Drug trafficking
Corruption and bribery
Fraud (e.g., wire fraud, securities fraud)
Terrorist financing
Tax evasion
⚖️ Legal Framework in the U.S.
Key statutes used to prosecute cross-border money laundering include:
18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2) — Laundering monetary instruments across U.S. borders
18 U.S.C. § 1957 — Engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) — Imposes reporting obligations on foreign transactions
PATRIOT Act — Enhances tools to track international money laundering, especially involving terrorism
To convict under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2), the prosecution must prove:
Movement of funds into or out of the United States
Knowledge that the funds are proceeds of unlawful activity
Intent to promote unlawful activity, evade taxes, conceal the source, or avoid reporting requirements
⚖️ Key U.S. Case Law on Cross-Border Money Laundering
1. United States v. Lopez-Vanegas, 493 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2007)
Facts:
Lopez-Vanegas was part of a large Colombian drug cartel that laundered money from drug sales in the U.S. back to Colombia using wire transfers and bulk cash smuggling.
Legal Issue:
Whether funds moved out of the U.S. to conceal drug proceeds constituted international money laundering.
Ruling:
Conviction affirmed. The court found sufficient evidence that the defendant knew the funds were drug proceeds and helped conceal them by moving the money to Colombia.
Importance:
Reinforces that sending dirty money out of the U.S. to conceal its origin is criminal under § 1956(a)(2).
Shows how international drug operations use financial systems for laundering.
2. United States v. Mandujano, 499 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2007)
Facts:
Mandujano moved proceeds of drug trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico by structuring cash deposits and wire transfers.
Legal Issue:
Whether the structuring of transactions to avoid detection qualifies as laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
Ruling:
The conviction was upheld. The court emphasized that intent to avoid reporting is sufficient under the statute.
Importance:
Shows how structuring and concealment motives play a central role in cross-border laundering.
Demonstrates the importance of financial monitoring systems in detecting laundering.
3. United States v. Regensberg, 604 F. Supp. 2d 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Facts:
Regensberg transferred millions of dollars obtained from a securities fraud scheme to offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands and Israel.
Legal Issue:
Whether moving fraudulent proceeds offshore with intent to conceal ownership constituted money laundering.
Ruling:
The court found the transfers violated 18 U.S.C. § 1956, as the defendant used foreign accounts to hide criminal proceeds.
Importance:
Illustrates laundering through offshore accounts tied to white-collar crimes.
Reinforces that fraud-based money laundering is treated just as seriously as drug-related cases.
4. United States v. Awada, 985 F.3d 836 (11th Cir. 2021)
Facts:
Awada operated a scheme smuggling cash out of the U.S. to Lebanon by hiding money in shipments of consumer goods.
Legal Issue:
Whether cash concealed in goods for international shipping can support a conviction under § 1956(a)(2).
Ruling:
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that physical smuggling of cash intended to promote or conceal criminal activity met the statutory requirements.
Importance:
Expands interpretation of cross-border laundering to non-wire methods, like smuggling cash in cargo.
Shows the flexibility of U.S. prosecutors in tracking complex laundering methods.
5. United States v. Budovsky, No. 13-CR-368 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
Facts:
Budovsky operated Liberty Reserve, a Costa Rica-based digital currency platform used for laundering over $6 billion in criminal proceeds globally, including from fraud and drug crimes.
Legal Issue:
Whether a digital currency system based offshore but used by U.S. citizens to launder money can be prosecuted under U.S. law.
Ruling:
Budovsky pled guilty, and the court found that U.S. law applied because the laundering affected the U.S. and involved U.S. users.
Importance:
A landmark case showing that digital and virtual currencies are covered by U.S. laundering laws.
Establishes that offshore laundering platforms are not beyond U.S. jurisdiction.
6. United States v. Chi Ping Patrick Ho, No. 1:17-cr-00779 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
Facts:
Ho, a Hong Kong-based official, was charged with laundering bribe payments through U.S. banks to influence African officials.
Legal Issue:
Whether use of U.S. financial institutions to route foreign bribery payments constitutes cross-border laundering.
Ruling:
Conviction upheld. The court found that use of U.S. banks to conceal bribes violated both the FCPA and the EEA’s money laundering statutes.
Importance:
Emphasizes that cross-border bribes laundered through U.S. banks fall under U.S. jurisdiction.
Reinforces the global scope of U.S. anti-money laundering enforcement.
🧾 Summary Table of Cross-Border Money Laundering Cases
| Case | Key Facts | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Lopez-Vanegas | Drug proceeds laundered to Colombia | Movement of drug money abroad to conceal is laundering |
| U.S. v. Mandujano | Structured cash to Mexico | Intent to avoid detection suffices for conviction |
| U.S. v. Regensberg | Fraud proceeds sent offshore | Hiding fraud gains via offshore accounts is laundering |
| U.S. v. Awada | Cash smuggled in goods to Lebanon | Smuggling currency for concealment is laundering |
| U.S. v. Budovsky | $6B laundered via digital currency abroad | U.S. law applies to digital platforms laundering U.S. funds |
| U.S. v. Patrick Ho | Foreign bribes via U.S. banks | Laundering foreign corruption proceeds through U.S. punishable |
🔍 Key Legal and Prosecutorial Themes
Jurisdiction: U.S. courts can prosecute foreign nationals if illegal money flows through U.S. banks or affects U.S. commerce.
Intention to Conceal: The focus is on why the money was moved, not just that it crossed a border.
Currency Smuggling: Physical and digital methods (e.g., crypto, bulk cash) are both prosecutable.
Use of Shell Companies/Offshore Accounts: Courts recognize and target common laundering methods.
Link to Other Crimes: Laundering charges are often added to drug, fraud, or bribery prosecutions.
🧩 Conclusion
Cross-border money laundering prosecutions show the U.S. government's determination to follow the flow of illicit money wherever it leads. The law gives wide jurisdictional power to federal prosecutors, especially when:
Funds are moved into or out of the U.S.
Laundering is used to promote, conceal, or avoid reporting of a crime
Laundering occurs through U.S. financial institutions or technologies
These prosecutions play a vital role in targeting organized crime, terrorism, and corruption across the globe.
RELATED Blog
0 comments