United States v. Faulkenberry

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) “requires only that the transaction be designed ‘in whole or in part’ to conceal”
• holding, post- Cuellar , that concealment must be \an animating purpose\ of transaction
• affirming wire-fraud conviction when the defendant sent a post-investment fax to lull the investors into a false sense of security
• describing wire fraud scheme using email to send falsified financial records to lull investors into a sense of security
• applying analysis in Cuellar to convictions under § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
• “Per the bonds’ master indentures, the Trustees could wire funds to providers only to the extent that NCFE documented that it was obtaining eligible receivables in return. But NCFE evaded this limitation by submitting a phony Receivables Purchase Report to the Trustees for every advance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).