United States v. Gary Esterman

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).