O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 7-1-915 (2019)

Criminal penalties; penalties imposed by other Code sections not superseded

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, whoever

willfully violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Whoever willfully violates any provision of this article where the violation is: (1) Committed in furtherance of the commission of any other violation of Georgia law; or (2) Committed as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving transactions exceeding $100,000.00 in any 12 month period shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500,000.00 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. (c) Whoever, knowing that the moneys involved in a currency transaction represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity: (1) With the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or (2) Knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under this article shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000.00 or twice the amount involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. (d) Nothing in subsection (c) of this Code section nor in subsection (c) of Code Section 7-1-914 shall supersede any provision of law imposing criminal or civil penalties or affording civil remedies in addition to those provided for in this Code section or in Code Section 7-1-914.

History

Code 1981, § 7-1-915, enacted by Ga. L.

1982, p. 2219, § 1; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 5; Ga. L. 1989, p. 1211, § 20.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Evidence sufficient to support conviction. - Evidence that the defendant was part of a conspiracy to deceive the victims into believing the victims had to wire money to a co-conspirator’s bank account, and that

the funds were used to promote unlawful activity was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for money laundering. Akintoye v. State, 340 Ga. App. 777, 798 S.E.2d 720, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 141 (2017).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2017–2019 · leading case: Carr v. The State., 829 S.E.2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carr v. The State., 829 S.E.2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “As to the money laundering predicate acts, OCGA § 7-1-915 (c) (2) provides that a person commits the offense of money laundering when that person knowing that the moneys involved in a currency transaction represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or…”

Akintoye v. State, 798 S.E.2d 720 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “Following a jury trial, Joseph Akintoye was convicted of two counts of theft by taking (OCGA § 16-8-2), two counts of theft by deception(OCGA § 16-8-3), twocounts of exploitation ofan elder person (OCGA § 30-5-8 (2012)), one count of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and…”

Joseph Akintoye v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “Money Laundering in Violation of OCGA § 7-1-915 Neither this Court, nor the Supreme Court of Georgia, has addressed the sufficiency of the evidence necessary to support a conviction for money laundering under OCGA § 7-1-915; therefore, this is an issue of first impression.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.