Legal Opinion
Whitfield v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 11, 2005No. 03-1293PublishedCited by 210 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor
These cases present the question whether conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 Ü. S. C. § 1956(h), requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. We hold that it does not.
I
In March 1999, a federal grand jury returned a 20-count indictment against petitioners and five codefendants. As relevant here, Count II of the indictment charged petitioners with conspiracy to launder money, in violation of § 1956(h). The indictment described, in general terms, the “manner and means” used to accomplish the objects of the money laundering conspiracy, but…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. YeskeySupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Nash v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. ShabaniSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States v. WellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by210 opinions
- Pasquantino v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- United States v. Shukri BakerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- United States v. Joseph SilvestriCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Ricardo U. Alerre, United States of America v. Deborah Bordeaux, United States of America v. Michael D. JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. TrejoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
205 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.