United States v. Crosgrove

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the act of receiving payments in violation of the mail/wire fraud statutes could also support a violation of the money laundering statute \without any additional action by Crosgrove\
• stating that “[a] prosecutor has leeway to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence” (internal quotes omitted)
• noting that “the repeated use of fictitious identities can justify a sophisticated means enhancement, particularly when the identity is reinforced through other deceptive practices, such as instructing [others] in handling calls directed to the fictitious party”
• noting that such an instruction “can generally correct” an improper argument
• relying in part on evidence of where a document originated in deeming the document properly authenticated
• reasoning the sophisticated means enhancement applies when defendants repeatedly use fictitious identities, “particularly when the identity is reinforced through other deceptive practices”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).