93 Va. Cir. 446
Buchanan Cir. Ct.2016Background
- John Douglas Napier and Eloise Napier, Michigan residents and owners of J & E Construction, were indicted in Buchanan County, Virginia on 19 counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering based on deposits of checks they received and deposited in Michigan.
- The Commonwealth alleges Defendants sold marijuana to Reda Deel in Michigan/Ohio, Deel transported/sold it in Buchanan County, and then sent checks from Grundy National Bank accounts payable to J & E Construction which Defendants deposited in Michigan.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue and for a bill of particulars; an evidentiary hearing was held and briefs were considered.
- The Commonwealth argued venue in Buchanan County was proper because (1) Defendants’ actions had the immediate result of drug distribution in Virginia and (2) the laundered funds originated from a Buchanan County bank account.
- Defendants argued the challenged financial transactions — the deposits and other banking acts — occurred entirely in Michigan, so Virginia lacked venue for prosecution under Va. Code § 18.2-246.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in Buchanan County for money laundering under Va. Code § 18.2-246.3 | Venue is proper because Defendants’ conduct had the immediate result of drug distribution in Virginia and the funds originated in Buchanan County | Venue is improper because the charged financial transactions occurred entirely in Michigan and Defendants never committed laundering acts in Virginia | Venue improper; charges dismissed (Michigan is proper venue) |
| Whether the sale/distribution of drugs in Virginia can supply venue for laundering committed out-of-state | The drug distribution was the immediate result of laundering actions, supporting venue in Virginia | The drug distribution was a separate, completed crime in another jurisdiction and not the immediate result of Michigan banking acts | Court rejects Commonwealth’s results-theory application; resale in Virginia is not immediate result of out-of-state laundering |
| Whether origin of deposited checks in Buchanan County suffices to establish venue | The checks originated in Buchanan County, so venue lies there | Mere origin of checks does not make Defendants’ Michigan banking acts crimes in Virginia | Origin of checks alone insufficient; Defendants’ actions occurred in Michigan |
| Whether a bill of particulars must be decided despite venue ruling | Commonwealth seeks to proceed in Virginia; requested particulars would clarify charges | Moot if venue is improper | Motion for bill of particulars rendered moot by dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollard v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 723 (venue requires evidence creating a strong presumption the offense occurred in the forum)
- Keesee v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 174 (venue may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence)
- Moreno v. Baskerville, 249 Va. 16 (limits on results theory; resale elsewhere may break immediacy needed for venue)
- Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 893 (venue for embezzlement may lie where intent formed or conversion consummated)
- Gregory v. Commonwealth, 237 Va. 354 (venue may be proper where illegal act’s direct and immediate result occurs in forum)
- Jaynes v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 443 (application of results theory to electronic acts causing harm in Virginia)
- United States v. Blecker, 657 F.2d 629 (locus delicti determined from nature of crime and location of acts)
- United States v. Cubrales, 524 U.S. 1 (money-laundering charges dismissed where transactions began, continued, and completed out-of-district; venue tied to locus of the financial transactions)