Seventh Circuit· 4/2/2003

United States v. Gary Esterman

Citations

324 F.3d 565
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6300
2003 WL 1733516

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that conviction under § 1956 requires proof of “intent to disguise or conceal transactions”
concluding that conviction under § 1956 requires proof of “intent to disguise or conceal transactions”
stating that “unusual financial moves culminating in a transaction” can support finding an intent to conceal
holding, pre- Cuellar , that conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 [a][1][B][i] requires \concrete evidence\ of intent to conceal, whether direct or circumstantial
finding it was clear error to consider the linguistic factor in isolation in determining that a savvy businessperson was a vulnerable victim
“the mere transfer and spending of funds is not enough to sweep conduct within the money laundering statute [but] subsequent transactions ... specifically designed ‘to hide the provenance of the funds involved’ ” is enough

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Posner, Wood, Evans

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.