Cluster 463553 (1986)

C. 46, 56, 746 F. 2d 39, 49 (1984) (reasonable federal agents could believe in good faith that a trash search is legal), and 7 rely entirely or almost entirely on an abandonment theory that, as noted infra, at 51, the Court has discredited, see United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F. 2d 1432, 1437 (CA9 1986) (“The question, then, becomes whether placing garbage for collection constitutes abandonment of property”); United States v. Terry, 702 F. 2d 299 , 308-309 (CA2) (“[T]he…

United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F. 2d 1432, 1437 (CA9 1986); United States v. O’Bryant, 775 F. 2d 1528 (CA11 1985); United States v. Michaels, 726 F. 2d 1307, 1312-1313 (CA8), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 820 (1984); United States v. Kramer, 711 F. 2d 789 (CA7), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 962 (1983); United States v. Terry, 702 F. 2d 299 , 308-309 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom.

United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986); see also United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1080 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 155 , 83 L.Ed.2d 92 (1984). 33 There is also no dispute that appellant deposited more than nineteen million U.S. dollars (in small bills) at British banks from May to November 1984, and that sufficient evidence was introduced to support the jury's finding of a conspiracy to sell narcotics. 11 34 The…

Therefore, the indictment before us does not properly allege a conspiracy to defraud." Id. (citing United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1986)). 75 This case is clearly distinguishable from Murphy.

The courts in both Déla Esperiella, 781 F.2d at 1435, and United States v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758, 761-63 (9th Cir.1986), reached this result for the same reason.

Cf. United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437-38 (9th Cir.1986) (following Trombet-ta, failure to preserve currency that canine detected cocaine on did not require suppression of evidence of canine cocaine detection).

“The government must demonstrate a ‘sufficient link’ between defendant’s money-laundering and the drug distribution conspiracy in order to prove that defendant was part of the conspiracy.” Id. (citing United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986)).

See Cuevas, 847 F.2d at 1422 (“There is no dispute that where a defendant knowingly facilitates movement of money derived from narcotics out of the United States for narcotics traffickers, he can be found guilty of a conspiracy to aid and abet narcotics trafficking.”); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986) (“It is today well settled that a person can be liable for conspiracy because he provides a central service to a criminal venture.

See Cuevas, 847 F.2d at 1422 ("There is no dispute that where a defendant knowingly facilitates movement of money derived from narcotics out of the United States for narcotics traffickers, he can be found guilty of a conspiracy to aid and abet narcotics trafficking."); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986) ("It is today well settled that a person can be liable for conspiracy because he provides a central service to a criminal venture.

Some decisions had held that an individual could be held criminally liable for causing a financial institution to fail to file a CTR that it had a legal duty to file, see United States v. Lafaurie, 833 F.2d 1468, 1470-71 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1032 , 108 S.Ct. 2015 , 100 L.Ed.2d 602 (1988); United States v. Hayes, 827 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Cure, 804 F.2d 625, 629 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d 1092, 1100-01 …

Some decisions had held that an individual could be held criminally liable for causing a financial institution to fail to file a CTR that it had a legal duty to file, see United States v. Lafaurie, 833 F.2d 1468, 1470-71 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1032 , 108 S.Ct. 2015 , 100 L.Ed.2d 602 (1988); United States v. Hayes, 827 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Cure, 804 F.2d 625, 629 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d 1092, 1100-01 …

Therefore, the indictment before us does not properly allege a conspiracy to defraud." Id. (citing United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Second, the person who was in the best position "to assess what Fedino and Giunta were up to" gave testimony which "completely undercuts the existence of the agreement specifically charged to Giunta and Fedino." Id. at 768 . 14 Defendant also argues that United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1080 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 845 (1984); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986), and United States v. Todd, 920 F.2d 399, 406 (6th Cir.1990…

He also alleges that he was not an officer of the bank until after the last transaction alleged in the indictment. 11 In United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1986), we held that an individual could be deemed a "financial institution" for purposes of § 5313 if that person "engages in a business in dealing or exchanging currency." Evidence at trial showed that at the time of the alleged transactions, Gebrayel was a controlling shareholder who exerci…

The term “financial institution” is broadly defined, United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986), and we hold that CSF fits well within the ambit of that term.

This definition is quite broad and is consistent with Congress’ intent to create a “sweeping law enforcement tool for locating inter alia, large transfers, in currency, of the proceeds of unlawful transactions.” United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986).

See, e.g., United States v. Cure, 804 F.2d 625, 628 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1986).

United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1080 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 154 , 83 L.Ed.2d 92 (1984).

See United States v. Risk, 843 F.2d 1059, 1061-62 (7th Cir.1988) (exchange made at same branch of one bank); United States v. Gimbel, 830 F.2d at 625-26 (7th Cir.1987) (same); United States v. Larson, 796 F.2d 244, 245-46 (8th Cir.1986) (both same and different branches of two banks on same day); United States v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir.1986) (same day, different banks); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1986) (associates made *596 exch…

In United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1986), the defendant’s couriers converted large amounts of cash into cashier’s checks of less than $10,000 each through structured transactions at various banks.

United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1986); Varbel, 780 F.2d at 762 .

Although defendants’ money laundering is not illegal on its face, see United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986) (money laundering itself is not a crime), 1 the indictment charges other crimes.

See California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 490 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984) (an OUI case in which the breath sample was not preserved); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir.1986) (Government failed to preserve the currency that narcotics canine alerted on, therefore, the defendant was unable to test for the presence of cocaine, however, no due process violation was found where the defendant had “ample opportunity to challenge the reliabil…

Historically, earlier courts analyzed garbage search cases by using abandonment concepts, see, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986); People v. Fata, 139 Misc.2d 979 , 529 N.Y.S.2d 683, 687 (Rockland County Ct.1988), or by asking whether the police intruded on the defendant's curtilage; see, e.g., Long, 176 F.3d at 1308 ; Everhart v. State, 274 Md. 459 , 337 A.2d 100, 115 (1975); State v. Goebel, 654 N.W.2d 700 , 703-04 & n. 1 (Minn.Ct.App…

Historically, earlier courts analyzed garbage search cases by using abandonment concepts, see, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986); People v. Fata, 139 Misc.2d 979 , 529 N.Y.S.2d 683, 687 (Rockland County Ct.1988), or by asking whether the police intruded on the defendant’s curtilage; see, e.g., Long, 176 F.3d at 1308 ; Everhart v. State, 274 Md. 459 , 337 A.2d 100, 115 (1975); State v. Goebel, 654 N.W.2d 700 , 703-04 & n. 1 (Minn.Ct.App…

No. 855, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1986)), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1982 , 118 L.Ed.2d 580 (1992); United States v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 650 F.Supp. 490 , 492 & n. 1 (E.D.Pa. 1986) (stating that the money laundering statutes did not apply to conduct occurring before the statutes' effective date); cf. United States v. Déla Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1986) ("[M]oncy laundering itself is not a crime, and the mere fact that a person launders monies d…

See United States v. Cuevas, 847 F.2d 1417, 1422 (9th Cir.1988) (“There is no dispute what where a defendant knowingly facilitates movement of money derived from narcotics out of the United States for narcotics traffickers, he can be found guilty of a conspiracy to aid and abet narcotics trafficking.”); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986).

Cure, supra, at 629 ; United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Denemark, 779 F.2d 1559, 1561-64 (11th Cir.1986).

See, e.g., United States v. Larson, 796 F.2d 244, 246 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758, 760-63 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676, 680-83 (1st Cir.1985); see also United States v. Gimbel, 830 F.2d 621, 625-26 (7th Cir.1987).

See e.g., United States v. Hernando Ospina, 798 F.2d 1570, 1578-79 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Mouzin, 785 F.2d 682, 689 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Goldberg, 756 F.2d 949, 953 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1009 , 105 S.Ct. 2706 , 86 L.Ed.2d 721 (1985).

See United States v. Larson, (to be reported at) 796 F.2d 244 opinion rendered July 22, 1986 (8th Cir.); United States v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506, 508 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. DeLa Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Denemark, 779 F.2d 1559, 1563-62 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758 (9th Cir.1986).

See United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1986).

See id. (quoting United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1986)).

See United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986).

See United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986).

See United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986) (placing garbage at curb for collection constitutes abandonment).

See, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437-38 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Webster, 750 F.2d 307, 331-34 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 2340 , 85 L.Ed.2d 855 (1985).

See, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437-38 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Webster, 750 F.2d 307, 331-34 (5th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 2340 , 85 L.Ed.2d 855 (1985).

See, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 , 1436 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1080 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 154 , 83 L.Ed.2d 92 (1984); United States v. Metz, 608 F.2d 147, 153 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 821 , 101 S.Ct. 80 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 24 (1980).

See, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1080 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 154 , 83 L.Ed.2d 92 (1984); United States v. Metz, 608 F.2d 147, 153 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 821 , 101 S.Ct. 80 , 66 L.Ed.2d 24 (1980).

See, e.g., United States v. Déla Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 , 1437 (9th Cir.1986) (trash put out for collection); United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 1171 (10th Cir.) (satchel left on ground during pursuit), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859 , 104 S.Ct. 184 , 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983); see also Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58 , 44 S.Ct. 445, 446 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924) (items left in field).

See, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F. 2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Michaels, 726 F.2d 1307, 1312-13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 820 , 105 S.Ct. 92 , 83 L.Ed.2d 38 (1984); United States v. Kramer, supra, 711 F.2d at 791-94 ; United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299, 308-09 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 931 , 103 S.Ct. 2095 , 77 L.Ed.2d 304 (1983); United States v. Reicherter, supra, 647 F.2d at 399 ; United States v. Vahalik, supra, 606 …

See United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that placing garbage for collection constitutes abandonment of property); United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299, 308-09 (2d Cir.1983) (finding that placing trash out for collection is an act of abandonment); United States v. Reicherter, 647 F.2d 397, 399 (3d Cir.1981) (“[T]he placing of trash in garbage cans at a time and place for anticipated collection by public employees for hauling to a publi…

See, e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that warrantless search of garbage left at curb for collection does not violate Fourth Amendment because property was abandoned); United States v. Vahalik, 606 F.2d 99, 101 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 , 100 S.Ct. 1034 , 62 L.Ed.2d 765 (1980) (placing garbage at curb for collection “is an act of abandonment which terminates any [F]ourth [A]mendment protection”); United Stat…

See United States v. Dela Esperiella 781 F.2d 1432 , 1436 (9th Cir.1986).

See also United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. O’Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Kramer, 711 F.2d 789 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 962 , 78 L.

See United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.1986), upholding a warrantless search of trash containers at curbside; United States v. Sumpter, 669 F.2d 1215 (8th Cir.1982), upholding retrieval by agents from a garbage truck of defendant's trash and indicating that any legitimate expectation of privacy is lost once trash is put out for collection in the usual *270 manner; United States v. Reicherter, 647 F.2d 397 (3rd Cir.1981), upholding the seizure of evidence…

See e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.1986) (failure to preserve currency not a due process violation); State v. Young, 228 Kan. 355 , 614 P.2d 441 (1980) (statute not require preservation of breath sample); Palmer v. State, 604 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1979) (defendant need not be advised of right to independent test of breath sample) and cases cited therein. 5 .