U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 95— RACKETEERING

18 U.S.C. § 1957

Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances set forth in subsection (d), knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under title 18, United States Code, or imprisonment for not more than ten years or both. If the offense involves a pre-retail medical product (as defined in section 670) the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under this subsection is greater.(2) The court may impose an alternate fine to that imposable under paragraph (1) of not more than twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transaction.(c) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, the Government is not required to prove the defendant knew that the offense from which the criminally derived property was derived was specified unlawful activity.(d) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—(1) that the offense under this section takes place in the United States or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or(2) that the offense under this section takes place outside the United States and such special jurisdiction, but the defendant is a United States person (as defined in section 3077 of this title, but excluding the class described in paragraph (2)(D) of such section).(e) Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct, and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General.(f) As used in this section—(1) the term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument (as defined in section 1956(c)(5) of this title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title, but such term does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution;(2) the term “criminally derived property” means any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense; and(3) the terms “specified unlawful activity” and “proceeds” shall have the meaning given those terms in section 1956 of this title.(Added Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1352(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–21; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §§ 6182, 6184, 6469(a)(2), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4354, 4377; Pub. L. 102–550, title XV, §§ 1526(b), 1527(b), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4065; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330020, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2149; Pub. L. 103–325, title IV, § 413(c)(2), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2255; Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, § 403(c)(2), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 243; Pub. L. 111–21, § 2(f)(2), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1618; Pub. L. 112–186, § 4(b)(2), Oct. 5, 2012, 126 Stat. 1429.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 112–186 inserted at end “If the offense involves a pre-retail medical product (as defined in section 670) the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under this subsection is greater.”

2009—Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 111–21 added par. (3) and struck out former par. (3) which read as follows: “the term ‘specified unlawful activity’ has the meaning given that term in section 1956 of this title.”

2006—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–177 amended subsec. (e) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (e) read as follows: “Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General.”

1994—Subsec. (f)(1). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330020, and Pub. L. 103–325, § 413(c)(2), amended par. (1) identically, striking out second comma after “(as defined in section 1956 of this title)”.

1992—Subsec. (f)(1). Pub. L. 102–550 substituted “section 1956 of this title” for “section 5312 of title 31” and inserted “, including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title,” before “but such term does not include”.

1988—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 100–690, § 6469(a)(2), substituted “and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General.” for “. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.”

Subsec. (f)(1). Pub. L. 100–690, §§ 6182, 6184, substituted “in section 1956(c)(5) of this title” for “for the purposes of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31” and inserted “, but such term does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,839 cases (293 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: United States v. Blair
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Blair (2011) ca4 · cites it 30× “§ 1956 (a)(1)(B)(i); one count of laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (a); one count of tampering with a witness in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Randy Glenn Young (2001) ca6 · cites it 29× “§ 666 (a)(1)(A) and one count of engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from specified unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 . The sen *471 tencing court affirmed the application of a two level enhancement to the offense levels of both the…”
United States v. Norberto Alaniz (2013) ca5 · cites it 9× “These amounted to charges for money laundering in violation, inter alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (a). The elements of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Adnan Bahhur (2000) ca6 · cites it 20× “Defendant Adnan Bahhur appeals his sentence of 97 months’ incarceration and 3 years’ supervised release, following his guilty plea to engaging in a prohibited monetary transaction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 ; food stamp fraud, in violation of 7 U.”
United States v. Monico Dominguez (2020) ca9 · cites it 5× “DOMINGUEZ SUMMARY ** Criminal Law The panel reversed a conviction of money laundering ( 18 U.S.C. § 1957 ); and affirmed the remainder of the judgment, which included convictions of Hobbs Act robbery ( 18 U.”
United States v. Kratt (2009) ca6 · cites it 10× “Fred Kratt challenges his conviction for three counts of engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property, see 18 U.S.C. § 1957 , and an $85,954 restitution order.”
United States v. Frank Cefaratti (2000) ca3 · cites it 14× “ti, who pleaded guilty to four counts arising from his execution of a scheme to defraud the United States Department of Education (DOE) out of student financial assistance funds, now appeals, arguing that the District Court erred in accepting his plea to the count charging him…”
United States v. Richard Olive (2015) ca6 · cites it 13× “§ 1343 ; and two counts of money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957 . The district court sentenced him to 372 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $5,992,181.”
United States v. Silver (2017) ca2 · cites it 6× “3 He additionally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on all counts of conviction, arguing, among other things, that his money laundering conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 required the Government to trace “dirty” funds comingled with “clean” funds.”
United States v. William Aramony, United States of America v. Stephen J. Paulachak, United States of America v. Thomas J (1996) ca4 · cites it 8× “§ 2314 ; two counts of engaging in monetary transactions in the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, see 18 U.S.C. § 1957 ; three counts of filing false tax returns, see I.”
United States v. Daniel Stanford (2016) ca5 · cites it 5× “§ 1956 (h)); and money laundering (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 ). Based on the intervening decision in McFadden v.”
United States v. Bush (2010) ca9 · cites it 10× “§ 1341 , and fifteen counts of engaging in unlawful monetary transactions (transactional money laundering) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 . Bush primarily contends that the government failed to prove that his money-laundering transactions involved the “profits” of criminal…”
Show all 1,839 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) — 5 cases
United States v. Frank Cefaratti (2000) ca3 “ti, who pleaded guilty to four counts arising from his execution of a scheme to defraud the United States Department of Education (DOE) out of student financial assistance funds, now appeals, arguing that the District Court erred in accepting his plea to the count charging him…”
United States v. Larry Hayward (2025) ca8
Ganan Ramirez v. United States (2021) nysd
Roden v. Schlichter (2020) ohsd
United States v. Manglitz (1998) ca4
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.