Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not commit clear error in applying two-level enhancement under section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) of USSG for using sophisticated means in committing mail fraud charge arising out of defendant's scheme to funnel more than $60 million in currency received by defendant's business into foreign bank accounts. While defendant disputed finding that he used sophisticated means to commit charged offense, record supported instant enhancement where defendant used elaborate tactics to conceal source of money, including exchanging currency for cashier's checks to carry over-seas, directing accountant to illegally structure currency deposits and washing money through third-party bank accounts.

Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in denying defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal on charge of concealment-based money laundering where defendants argued that term "proceeds'' under 18 USC section 1956(a) required proof of concealment of net proceeds, as opposed to gross proceeds, of underlying drugs sales of defendants' customers, who used cash generated from said sales to purchase luxury cars from defendants. At time of offense, law was unsettled as to meaning of "proceeds" in concealment money laundering prosecution, and thus any error was not plain. Dist. Ct. also did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to individually question all prospective jurors about possible racial or religious bias against Iranian-Americans, even though record showed that two prospective jurors indicated that they had problem with fact that defendants were Iranian-Americans when Dist. Ct. addressed issue with prospective jurors as group. Dist. Ct. has discretion when conducting voir dire, and Dist. Ct. could properly address racial/religious bias issue to entire group of prospective jurors and then make individual inquiries only for those jurors who registered potential bias.