United States v. Castellini

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• distinguishing between extortion and sending checks to aides and relatives to hide the proceeds of extortion
• noting that although \'the predicate offense[] must produce proceeds before anyone can launder those proceeds[]' . . . that does not require the two crimes involved to be entirely separate in time\ (quoting United States v. Mankarious, 151 F.3d 694, 705 (7th Cir. 1998))
• rejecting a procedural argument that the district court \never made explicit findings regarding the existence of the conspiracy and whether the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy\ where the defendant \did not ask the court to be more specific\
• “Money laundering requires there to be proceeds of illegal activity and cannot be the same as the illegal activity which produces the proceeds.”
• money laundering “cannot be the same as the illegal activity which produces the proceeds”
• “From that point of view, the fact that Castellini’s additional actions after initially receiving the funds (moving the funds around, and so forth) could have been charged as either money laundering or aiding and abetting an ongoing bankruptcy fraud could be thought to be irrelevant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).